Talk:Thirteen Colonies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

old comments

THE THIRTEEN COLONIES IN ORDER!! The order of the thirteen colonies is: COLONY NAME YEAR FOUNDED FOUNDED BY Virginia 1607 London Company Massachusetts 1620 Puritans New Hampshire 1623 John Wheelwright Maryland 1634 Lord Baltimore

Connecticut c. 1635 Thomas Hooker Rhode Island 1636 Roger Williams

Delaware 1638 Peter Minuit and New Sweden Company North Carolina 1653 Virginians South Carolina 1663 Eight Nobles with a Royal Charter from Charles II New Jersey 1664 Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret New York 1664 Duke of York Pennsylvania 1682 William Penn

Georgia 1732 James Edward Oglethorpe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.226.49 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Division of the colonies

Are the colonies separated into 3 parts: New England, __, and __? --Menchi 07:00, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Found it in a textbook: New E., Middle, and Southern. I'll add them to the article. --Menchi 07:02, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

It's an artificial classification, but it is somewhat helpful, so I'm fine with it. Just bear in mind there was no formal distinction, although there were various divisions that drove certain decisions: north vs. south, and large state (especially population) vs. small state, but the 3 part division is reasonably helpful and the most common division made for this period of the United States as far as I can recall. I think the other distinctions I just mentioned are better placed on a US Constitional History page. Daniel Quinlan 08:23, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I classification I am fond of is the one used D.W. Meinig in his books "The Shaping of America". He writes of "Greater New England" (including eastern Long Island), "Hudson Valley" (including East Jersey), "Greater Pennsylvania" (including West Jersey, Delaware, and parts of Maryland and Virginia (Piedmont and Great Wagon Road areas)), "Greater Virginia" (including Tidewater Maryland and parts of North Carolina), and "Greater South Carolina" (including Georgia and parts of North Carolina). I like this 5-way classification for colonial America.. each region is fairly self-contained, culturally distinct from each other, but similar in terms of population and power. Pfly 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Specific colony locations

What about linking directly to founding colonies, eg,

Maryland (eg, St. Marie's City)

Massachusetts (eg, Boston_Colony)

Would that be appropriate ?

Who were the men who found the 13 colonies? - Anon

I wouldn't link directly, but I would perhaps provide links to articles about each colony history. The history of Massachusetts, for example, goes far beyond the founding colony. Daniel Quinlan 08:00, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why delink colony names?

Any reason for delinking all but four of the colony names? jengod 00:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

The ones I delinked have been renamed to a single place which is already in wikipedia (and linked), so the most we'd have is a redundant redirect. Anthony DiPierro 00:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The history of New Jersey is already in the New Jersey article. Anthony DiPierro 14:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Title

Moved article from 13 colonies to Thirteen Colonies because:

1. style manuals seem to favor "13" being spelled out in this instance (see, for example, Chicago Manual of Style)
2. "thirteen colonies" returns slightly more results than "13 colonies" on Google (31,500 vs. 31,000)
3. "Colonies" should be capitalized because this is a formal historical term

--Lowellian 00:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Which section of Chicago are you referring to? What is this instance? 9.3 or 9.5? jengod 01:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of Chicago with me, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. Most manuals of style in the humanities and social sciences use one the spell-out-numbers-from-1-to-100 rule (though I grant that some other manuals use other, more complicated rules, such as the word-count rule wherein "twenty" is spelled out but "21" is not). There are numerous exceptions when those rules aren't applied and the number is spelled out, such as years, dollar amounts, percentages, page numbers, etc., but none of those exceptions apply in this case. --Lowellian 04:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Heading

Why was the heading changed to "Et al."? I find that to be extremely confusing. What was wrong with the original heading of "Other British colonies in North America and the Caribbean in 1776"? --Lowellian 04:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Vermont?

I think Vermont was a disputed region between New York and New Hampshire... Why only list it as New York? --24.147.128.141 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Vermont was indeed claimed by both New York and New Hampshire. This should be noted on the list.

It may interest some people to know that Vermont (along with that section of New York north of the Mohawk river) almost became a 14th Colony. In 1775 delegation of local dignitaries from upstate New York and the New Hamphire Grants (lead by Phillip Skeen, a prominent land owner in the area) went to England seeking a Charter from George III to form a new Colony ... this was looked on with favor by the King and his ministers, and the delegation returned to America with some preliminary documentation ... only to discover that the Colonies were in revolt against the England and, thus, their documents were not concidered valid. This "aborted" Colony was to be called "Charlotte" and the Capital was to be at what is now Crown Point, New York.

But actually, unknown to almost all Americans, Vermont declared independence from Britain and/or the US in 1777, and existed as an independent country before joining the U.S. See Vermont. And was apparently recognized as independent by the U.S.: "The state exchanged ambassadors with France, the Netherlands, and the American government then at Philadelphia." A question not addressed in the Vermont article is when and how New York and New Hampshire formally renounced their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary colonies, I took the text at Proprietary colonies and dumped it into this article. You'll probably need to copy-edit the new section vigorously. Let me stress that normal edit rules apply, so feel free to condense the text if you think that's necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, didn't anyone think to merge and redirect to the singular Proprietary colony? older≠wiser 16:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Map of territory claimed by the colonies

The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map in the article, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the map request from here as it really belongs in state cessions - I'm currently working on it. Kmusser 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

could someone make a link to a page with the colonies in order of their founding and then in order that they ratified the constitution. 69.160.92.13 El_C 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "Thirteen Colonies" Prior to the Revolution

Before the Revolution, were these 13 colonies regarded as in any way distinct from those colonies that remained loyal to the crown? Did the phrase "13 colonies" even exist before the Revolution? Or was it just an accident of history that these 13 chose to rebel while others, such as what are now the maritime provinces of Canada, remained loyal? TharkunColl 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I sent this question to the Library of Congress and the answer I got back was that the phrase "13 colonies" was not in usage before the war. Although there were differences between the 13 and the others, it was a matter of perpective and not fact. I can post the reply here, but it is fairly long.Gary Joseph 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do. You could make it an archive subpage or something.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the point above, isn't the title an anachronism? Isn't it poor form to use anachronistic language to define an article? Scoterican 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, anachronistic terms are often used to define periods, as it is very difficult for people living during a time to understand the nature of their time period. For example, the term pre-Elizabethan would be an anachronism. In fact, even the name World War I is an anachronistic term, as during that time period, it could not have been predicted that there would be another war, and so it was actually called "The Great War."--Beezer137 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem is with the capitalization "the Thirteen Colonies" in running text. Who has actually used that as a proper noun, rather than just "the thirteen American Colonies", etc., (forgetting Canada, the Caribbean, etc. as usual). Is this Wikipedia article innovating this named entity as such? BindingArbitration (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)BA

Nevermind -- Here's an olde fashioned looking map with "Thirteen Colonies" designated as such, so seems to be a conventionally used term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG

But, it should be clearly pointed out in the article (I haven't read through thoroughly) that there was no such specific grouping historically -- the 13 were not grouped as such by Britain nor different from other British colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration (talk • contribs) 10:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I've suggested a merge from Colonial America to here. That article is entirely about the history of the 13 colonies (or at least of the land that became the 13 colonies anyway). This one is short, and I don't see anything that isn't covered over there (except, ironically, about things outside the 13). I think Thirteen Colonies is the best title for the merged content. Colonial America could be rewritten as a summary of the colonial history of the rest of the US, or as a disambiguation page (I'd prefer the former). Does anyone have any thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that.Kmusser 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind a merge, but I strongly oppose naming the resulting article "Thirteen Colonies". There just happened to be thirteen colonies at the time of the American Revolution, so it would seem to limit the article to the time that they all existed rather than the complete history of American colonization. Also, it seems awkward and imprecise to me. If there is a problem with America = United States, then I would suggest a name like "Colonization of the United States" or something similar rather than "Thirteen Colonies". -- Kjkolb 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There was never thirteen colonies, there was twelve original colonies and post revolutionary times, Delaware became a seperate state but for no intensive purposes was it ever a colony. For some odd reason it was always grouped as 13 colonies possibly because 13 states were formed but there was actually only 12 colonies.

Oppose Lets not merge the articles the 13 colonies are signficant both as the foundational colonies of the United States, and by the absence of the other 6 colonies. Colonial America (as distinct from Colonial Canada?) may be only concerned with the 13 (or twelve), but we need to parse them out somewhere, with the 13 being to 'proto-america' and the other 6 loyalist. Bo 03:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? As they are currently written, both articles now deal with "proto-America". We don't need two.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Colonial America has as it start, in the lead paragraph, "Colonial America refers to the area now known as the eastern United States and parts of Canada ", perhaps it needs 'fleshing out', but it does not need to be merged with this article. The 13 have nothing to do with Canada. Bo 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - "Colonial America" should be used for the time period of British colonialization upto the Revolution. "13 Colonies" should show the history of discontent, and the breaking away, and ultimatly the formation of the US. Joe I 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Colonial America as it's currently written only deals with the 13 Colonies. Your suggestion would require a rewrite (which I'm okay with, but someone needs to do it). We don't need two articles on the same subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Colonia America deals with the colonies in america, including Canada, it does not deal only with the 13. It needs more information on the other colonies, so that the article fullfills the promise of the lead paragraph, it does not need to merged. Bo 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is, right now, both articles deal with the same subject, and we don't need both. It does mention Canada in the lead, but there isn't any information about it in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want an article dealing with both the US and Canada, you could suggest British North America be fleshed out. What we are dealing with is two separate articles that both focus on the 13 colonies of the "proto-US". We need to merge the content into one page; then we can do whatever we want with the actual page with the name "Colonial America".--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

British North America is a links page, Colonial America is at least a start on an actual overview of the Colonies in America before the split. I think the addition of relavent information about the Floridas, Quebec, Nova Scotia, etc in Colonial America would be a better way to improve the wiki. I'll get busy on adding stuff about the Floridas to the Colonial America, to enhance the article, and increase the separation. Bo 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be the best thing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Bo. I'd go further to say that I think that this article should be maintained as a links page to direct to the histories of the "13" colonies. All the other information that was/is here is both more accurately and more fully dealt with elsewhere. Scoterican 21:18 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose "Thirteen colonies " was not a common term for the are which became the United States. Does it apear on any documents? After 1776 they were klnown as the "United States." Inkpaduta 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delaware was not a colony, just a state.

Delaware was nothing ever but a boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania--one time part of a deed to the Duke of York, but never its own geographic entity until becoming a state. There is no reason to deny its position as the first of the 13th states, but all the more reason to keep it out of the colonial category. There were only 12 colonies rebelling, with estranged Delaware's exit from Pennsylvania beginning a trend that emancipated Vermont/Kentucky/Maine etc from parent polities (New York, Virginia, Massachusetts etc). Let's not get hazy on this, but more exacting and forthright. Hasbro 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, it would be awesome if we could build out a section on this page diagramming not just the regional divisions of the colonies but the legal-governmental distinctions. In addition to the distinction mentioned above, which I more or less agree without although I'm shaky on the exact details, didn't we all learn in school about crown vs. chartered vs. the other kind (*g*) of colonies? jengod 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, but before someone puts up a section on governmental distinctions, they should see if it would be better to include it in Colonial America or here.

Also, someone who understands the political history of the piece of land that became Delaware should probably move Delaware out of the list of colonies and into the section on "Other Divisions", if it would make the page more accurate. Scoterican 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon

Copied from my talkpage Septentrionalis 05:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Colonial Cores

Historian Jack P. Greene identified six core regions of the British colonies: New England, the Middle Atlantic, The Chesapeake Colonies, the Lower Southern Colonies, the Atlantic Island Colonies, and the West Indies. Virtually every colonial historian agrees with him that the tobacco colonies of Virginia and Maryland represent a different region that the rice colonies of the Carolinas and Georgia. For a good discussion on the difference, please see Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Low Country by Philip D. Morgan (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1998). Given that this is the position taken by the vast majority of colonial historians, don't you think we should stop combining Maryland and Virginia with the Southern Colonies? Thanks.

A newbie has just blessed me with this message and the next. Is this a serious statement of the scholarship, or is this another crank devoted to whatever book he just happened to read? and do the books by these redlinks have any merit?

For my part, I dunno. I do get rather tired of being told that some flaky theory is the consensus of scholarship; and this one seems even more useless than usual. For one thing, it clearly doesn't apply to any point before the Restoration, and doesn't apply particularly well before the Glorious Revolution. New England, Middle and South are nice, even, well-established divisions; this fad may go away again in another decade. But I'm willing to put it up for discussion. Septentrionalis 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't have a clue on the contemporary consensus, but the consensus will change when the next batch of professors who need to make a name for themselves write their 'new' theories. The division on the page works just fine. Scoterican 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of British Colonies

Not that it matters, but there were actually 31 British colonies at the time.

Clearly a matter of definition. I only put 25 back in an effort to compromise the pointless number war, which was in part produced by unclarity; if this continues, I suggest we put back 13 and stick to it.</grump> Septentrionalis 05:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Not that it matters" - that is probably the key to the problem! :) We need to edit the page so we don't need the specific number, since it is not important to this page. Scoterican 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I used the numbers from the British North America article (at the time of the rebellion), and I'd think that the 13 being only a fraction of the British North American Colonies at the time they declared themselves independent would matter. And to it follows that as it matters that they were only a fraction, then the size of the denominator matters too. Bo 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

MD/VA

MY Opinion:

   I clearly believe that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!

Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. I'm from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutely HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconsiderate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.

Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.

   If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????

It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty useful to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORCED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are naturally South.

Subject 3: MD.

   Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.

I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!

Final Subject: Overall.

   Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!

They have many southern charms too. In fact, we have great hospitality too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that Maryland and Virginia are at least a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if you've been too Maryland and Virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!

P.S. don't post nasty negative comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz

P.S. no 2. IF you ask a man at a gas station in Southern, MD.... you'll know that chu in the south. - Footballchik

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryland"

like omg i love the thirteen colonies and to learn about them

The question is not if they are Southern States now, nor is it if they were at one time during their history, but rather it is if they were in the time period in question. This means you have to limit yourself to the period before the US was formed. So, while you have every right to feel strongly about how they should be classified today, and how they should be classified during the period of the Civil war, your reasoning does not apply to the historic classification of either MD or VA in this Wiki entry. Scoterican 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There were 20 Colonies in British America until April 19, 1775

Please review the map below,

The British Colonies in North America 1763-1775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG

Count 'em. There are 20 Colonies in British America (19 Settler Colonies and the Hudson's Bay Land (i.e., 19+1=20)). Now, if considers the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians there were 21 (i.e., 20+1=21)). Let us review,

British America consisted of 21 parts,

(i). 19 Settler Colonies,

(ii). the Hudson's Bay Land,

(iii). the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians.

To further clarify the British Colonies in North America 1763-1775 were in practice refered to as the two separate British Colonial Regions of British America (i.e., the mainland and Newfoundland), and the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).

Next, the "19 Colonies" of British America under went a schism after April 19, 1775 and divided themselves into two opposing camps, the "13 Colonies" in Rebellion of British America, and the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG

Addendum: List of the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.

Colony of Newfoundland (founded 1583),

Colony of Nova Scotia (founded 1625),

Colony of Quebec (founded 1763),

Colony of Prince Edward Island (founded 1770),

Colony of East Florida (founded 1763),

Colony of West Florida (founded 1763).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Does the article claim that the thirteen colonies were the only British colonies in North America? No. The article at present, states in the introduction The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies in North America founded between 1607 (Virginia), and 1732 (Georgia). Although Britain held a dozen additional colonies in North America and the West Indies, the colonies referred to as the "thirteen" are those that rebelled against British rule in 1775. (Seven other British colonies did not join the rebellion.) The article British North America contains the complete list you are looking for. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bkonrad. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them alot. As per the title of this Wikipedia article, The Thirteen Colonies, I am not disputing its appropriateness. I believe it is a very good article. Indeed.

What I am attempting to do is to CLARIFY the FACT that between 1763-1775 there were 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland). These were divided into THREE DISTINCT COLONIAL SUBARCHTYPES,

(i). Settler Colonies ("the 19 Colonies"), i.e., 19 Units,

(ii). Commerical Colonies (the Hudson's Bay Land), i.e., 1 Unit,

(iii). Crown Lands (the Crown Land Reserved for the Indians) i.e., 1 Unit.

Thus, giving us 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland).

The salient point is that in (i). the "13 Colonies" of the 19 Colonies seceeded from British America, and definitely not from the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).

Summary:

The term known as British Colonies in North America is NOT the same thing as term known as British North America. Why? You see the correct historical usage of British North America consists ot the time period 1783-1867 (i.e., AFTER the War of Independence (1775-1783)). The term known as British America is correctly applied to the time period 1607-1775.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• The "Thirteen colonies" is a term coined by a Wikipedia editor, and was not the term under which the United States fought the revolution, nor was it a term used by the British or others to describe them, so it is not appropriate as a title for this article. Likewise they did not fight as the "United Colonies." From the Declaration of independence through the present they have been the "United States." Inkpaduta 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction: from May 1775 to July 1776 the Continental Congress fought as the "United Colonies." (and issued paper money in that name. Look closely at the top line of the money it issued:

$2 paper money issued in name of United Colonies, 1775; these bills were called "continentals"

Rjensen 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the long form name was the United Colonies of North America. Additionally, the short form name was the United Colonies.

For a short while the "Continental Army" used the term the United Provinces of North America.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we get semi-protection for this page?

Ahem, could we get semi-protection for this page? So that only REGISTERED Wikipedians will be allowed to edit the Thirteen Colonies page. There has been alot of petty vandalism lately.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First New Nation?

Rjensen claims that this is sidely used among political scientists; that may have been true forty years when Lipset wrote, but the conceit seems to have gone out again. In any case, it is off-topic here, in this extended dab page, which ends with the Revolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, very off topic. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Please note that the Declaration of Independence declares a "united States of America", not a "United States of America". samwaltz 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the archaic form is really appropriate here. It may just be confusing; at any rate I don't think it's really all that important. I won't revert it, though; I'd like to see what others have to say. HiramShadraski 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

it was a printer error and is not on the official copy Rjensen 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT a printer error.

The final agreement on the long form name of the new country was decided on the Articles of Confederation, specifically,

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

In legal terminology, Style and Title explicitly mean long form name.

Consider the following evolution of the name,

British America,

United Colonies of New England,

Dominion of New England,

British Colonies in North America,

United Colonies of North America,

United Provinces of North America,

United Colonies of British America,

States of America,

United States of America.

(and briefly, the Confederate States of America),

Note: Dominion of North America is implied if the Galloway Plan of Union was followed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway's_Plan_of_Union

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"States of America" ?? nope--not in any reference book. Rjensen 08:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, this is a minor point, but I can argue it (I believe sucessfully btw), the States of America,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_declaration_independence.jpg

was the temporary long form name of the new country on July 4, 1776. It is probably the best comprimise that the Founder Father's had come up with at that time.

States of America

Pretty clear eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So the name was either "the united States of America" or "States of America" until the Articles of Confederation were (yes, were) written. This means we should change the line "proclaimed their independence as the United States of America on July 4, 1776" to simply "proclaimed their independence on July 4, 1776", as "united" was not officially capitalised until Article I "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America"." was adopted on 15 November, 1777. samwaltz 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The States of America was probably all the Founding Father's could agree by July 4, 1776. Ultimately the long form name of the United States of America was settled on, via the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Since the Government of the United States of America won the War of Independence 1775-1783 they won the right to retro-actively chose their date of independence for the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They chose July 4, 1776. They could of chosen April 19, 1775; July 5, 1775; July 4, 1776; September 30, 1783; anything they wanted. They won eh.

Bibliography

(1). Anthony Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North-America and the West Indies at the Time the Civil War Broke Out on the Continent of America in which Notice is Taken of such Alterations as have Happened since that Time, down to the Present Period with a Variety of Colony Precients, which are Chiefly Adapted to the British West Indian Islands; and may be Useful to those, who have Intercourse with the Colonies, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Union, New Jersey, USA, pp. 556, (reprint of 1783 version), (2002).

(2). Charles L. Mowat, East Florida as a British Province, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp. 237, (Facsmilie reprint of 1943 version), (1964).

(3). Cecil Johnson, British West Florida 1763-1783, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 257, (1943).

(4). J. Baton Starr, Tories Dons and Rebels The American Revolution in British West Florida, The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp.278, (1976).

(5). Lawrence H. Feldman, The Last Days of British Saint Augustine 1784-1785 A Spanish Census of the English Colony of East Florida, Clearfield Company Inc., by the Geneological Company Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 116,(2003).

(6). William R. Shepard, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, (This edition contains all maps of the Seventh Revised and Enlarged and a special suppliment of historical maps for period since 1929 prepared by C.S. Hammond and Company), The Colonial Offset Co., Inc., Pikesville, Maryland, USA, pp. 115, (1956).

(7). Frederick D. Stone, Plans for the Union of the British Colonies of North America 1643-1776, pp.439-503, (1889).

(8). Handlist of Proclamations Issued by Royal and Other Constitutional Authorities 1714-1910, Burt Franklin, New York, New York, USA, pp. 918, (1967).

(9). Daniel Coxe, A Description of the English Province of Carolana, By the Spanards Call'd Florida, and By the French La Louisiane, The University Presses of Florida, Gaineville, Florida, USA, pp. 140, (Facsimile reproduction of the 1722 edition), (1976).

(10). James B. Scott, Autonomy and Federation within Empire the British Self-Governing Dominions, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, USA, pp.352, (1921).

(11). Hugh E. Egerton, Federation and Unions within the British Empire, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, London, England, UK, pp.306, (1924).

(12). Viola F. Barnes, The Dominion of New England A Study in British Colonial Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 303, (1960).

(13). James P. Taylor, The Cardinal Facts of Canadian History Carefully Gathered from the Most Trustworthy Sources, The Hunter Rose Co., Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 228, (1899).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

united States of America? no--Congress said capital-U United States of America?

Congress decided the issue on July 19, 1776: Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress. The lower case "u" on the engrossed copy was a printer error and was not authorized by Congress: it used the upper case. Source = Journals at [5] Rjensen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, please provide a bone-fide reference to this being a "printer error". Frankly, your story sounds preposterous.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the engrossed document: small letter "u". Take a look at the official journal [6] which specifies capital "U". What's preosterous? Rjensen 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me a bone-fide reference that explicitly states that it is a printer error.

Old Copy

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/DECLARATION/us_declarationE.jpg

Later Reprint

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/23dunlap.jpg

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for a reference. But what else can one call it when the engrosser's version differs slightly from what was ordered by Congress? Note that capitalization was quite erratic in those days. The Journals on July 4 clearly specify the capital U in "United", see [7] However notice the mixed capital and lower case letters in the opening: That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [8] Perhaps they upper-cased most (but not all) nouns and the engrosser though "united" was an adjective and did not notice that Congress had ordered it upper cased? Rjensen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, both Jefferson's handwritten draft[9] and the printing made on the night of July 4 have "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all upper case). It's the engrossed copy made by Matlack several weeks later that has the lower case "united". [10] The Congress officially stated "United" on both July 4 and July 19. Rjensen 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look it, I firmly believe that the long form name of the country was the United States of America. Next upon inspection of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson,

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc49.jpg

one sees that is says,

"A Declaration of Independence by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled"

However, where is the THIRTEEN part (that appeared in the final draft)?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

States of America or United States of America Engrossment Question

Engrossment is the craft of transcribing Offical Documents in large text (usually Caligraphy).

Engrossed Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

http://www.calligraphersguild.org/penmen.html

The engrosser stock-and-trade is getting things right. So why was the word United in the long form name the United States of America not engrossed to the same size as the rest of the name, i.e., it looks like the States of America was all the Founding Father's could agree on by July 4, 1776.

Anyone have any bone-fide references to shed some light on this question?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the engrosser involved Timothy Matlack was not a professional calligrapher -- he was a staffer who had the best handwriting and was assigned the job. His product does NOT match the resolutions passed by Congress in terms of one lower case letter "u", so he made a little mistake. One assumes he was human and there was a war going on, after all. Rjensen 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A little mistake? No. He must of been told to make it that way.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A reference was asked for: Pauline Maier American Scripture p 235 says "human error crept into the various transcriptions". Rjensen 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Various transcriptions? Does she explicitly indicate this first one by Timothy Matlack?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement over whether the 13 became "states" immediately upon signing of the Declaration

The word "subsequently" is functionally the same as the word "then" in the sense used. The only real difference is that it leaves open the question of the moment at which the Thirteen became states, and there seems to be some legitimate ambiguity about that.

I'm not going to push this because it's such a trivial point, but I would urge other editors to at least avoid making declarative statements via WP content when such are perhaps inappropriate. HiramShadraski 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

People in 1776 called them states, as did Congress itself. What's the dispute? Everyone agreed that once they declared independence they are no longer a colony of Britain--the Loyalists protested loudly! Britain withdrew all the colonial officials and when it occupied an area did so under martial law not colonial law (Georgia was an exception for a while).Rjensen 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Although 1776 is popularly acknowledged as the birthday of the United States -- precisely when the colonies became states of the governmental entity that is now known as the United States of America is not so clear. A less assertive statement that states the facts in a more neutral manner is perfectly acceptable in the context of this article. older ≠ wiser 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with User:Bkonrad. No need to mention "birthdays" here. The current wording is indisputably accurate.--JW1805 (Talk) 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How Independent Countries are "made"

There are basically two ways in which Independent Countries are "made".

(i). Victory-on-the-Battlefield,

(ii). Peaceful granting of Independence via a "Stronger Power" (usually a Colonial Power).

That is about it. Those two ways ... nothing else.

Therefore the United States of America by virtue of method (i), i.e., the winning of the War of Independence (1775-1783) earned the right to retro-actively declare its "birthday" on July 4, 1776. If the "US Patriots" had lost and the "British/Loyalists" had won ... it would of been the American Rebellion, not the American Revolution.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Extinct state

This page needs a Former country infobox. Anyone? 200.152.18.199 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1776 POV

Stating that the thirteen colonies did not exist after 1776 is POV. The British still referred to this area as the colonies, their officials still held the title of governor, and the British still appointed new governors to the thirteen colonies between 1776 to 1783. As far as the British were concerned the thirteen colonies existed until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. BradMajors (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for being dense, but would you mind quoting the exact sentence you're contesting? Also, As far as the British were concerned the thirteen colonies existed until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 is also a POV statement. In this case there is no real neutral point of view, as both points of views are valid, though conflicting. If they weren't conflicting, there would have been no need for a Revolution. Also, many British still call the USA "the colonies". Fortunately, they're wrong! - BillCJ (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The following original wording which I rewrote to make it more neutral: "in 1775, proclaimed their independence on July 4, 1776, and subsequently were the original thirteen United States. I believe the article, as I currently have rewritten it, is neutral."
• There is also the issue of the colonies being listed in the disestablishment category for the year 1776. BradMajors (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being way too nit-picky here. But whatever. - BillCJ (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Total area?

Does anyone know offhand the total area of the original thirteen colonies? I'd like to add that info to the List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual area would be roughly half that of the current states by those names (since the populated area didn't go much above the fall line). However, the claimed area (including overlapping claims) stretched out to the Mississippi River. So it'll be hard finding a reliable source that anyone can agree upon. Tedickey (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen (13) / United Colonies

Why is there a 'hang-up!' about the number of original colonies and not the fact that they were united against Great Britain's rule. Later to become the United States Mr Taz (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the article covers the pre-revolutionary rather than the Revolutionary period. The term "United States of America" was used in the United States Declaration of Independence, which is the beginning of the Revolutionary period, and of the US itself. - BillCJ (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes the article covers the pre-revolutionary rather than the Revolutionary period. The term "United Colonies" was also used in the United States Declaration of Independence(United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Lee.27s_resolution_and_the_final_push) Mr Taz (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about the 13 colonies giving rise to 18 states

The article says "the Thirteen Colonies gave rise to eighteen present-day states", followed up with a list of which states were formerly part of one of the thirteen. For example, "Kentucky (formerly part of Virginia until 1792), Tennessee (formerly part of North Carolina until 1796)", and in the list below, "Province of New York, later New York and Vermont", and "Colony and Dominion of Virginia, later Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia", and "Province of Georgia, later Georgia", etc. Much of this is incorrect, if my understanding of history is right. The most clearly incorrect claim is that Tennessee was "part of North Carolina until 1796". My sources say, as does State cessions, that North Carolina ceded its western lands (later Tennessee) in 1790, after which it the federally administrated Southwest Territory until 1796, when the state of Tennessee was created--out of federal, not state territory. Okay, you say, but North Carolina had at some time claimed what later became Tennessee, even if the claim was ceded to the federal government--so the Province of North Carolina still "gave rise" to Tennessee. But if "giving rise" is to mean all the territory once claimed by the 13 colonies and then ceded to the federal government (either under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution), then the Colony of Virginia "gave rise" not just to Kentucky and West Virginia, but also Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virginia ceded most of this territory to the federal government, but kept some of it, such as the Virginia Military District in what is now Ohio. Likewise the Province of New York claimed more or less everything north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River. The claim continued after New York became a US state. It was ceded to the federal government in the 1780s. Likewise, Virginia formerly ceded its claims north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi to the federal government. Thus New York and Virginia together "gave rise" to at least Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--perhaps more depending on how one interprets the claims, and ignoring the narrow strips claimed and ceded by Massachusetts and Connecticut! Georgia, as the Province of Georgia and then the state, extended west to the Mississippi River, thus including nearly all of what became Alabama and Mississippi. Like the other state cessions, Georgia formally ceded these lands to the federal government. Many of these state cessions included qualifications on the number and/or shape and size of new states to be created out of the ceded territory. So, my question here is how accurate it is to say that the Thirteen Colonies gave rise to 18 present-day states. If Tennessee is to be counted then shouldn't Ohio, at the very least, also count? One could argue that the land that became Wisconsin, for example, was never actually under the administration of another state, despite there being claims. But Ohio was--at least as much as Tennessee was under North Carolina's administration (ie, not very). On the other hand, if "giving rise" is restricted only to states created directly out of other states without passing through federal control, then Tennessee does not count, but otherwise the lists on this page seem correct. Does all this make sense? Pfly (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense - but due to the amount of discussion, perhaps it should be split off into a separate topic, expanded there, and the brief statement in this topic amended to lead into that Tedickey (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, perhaps easier, just remove Tennessee from the list. It is the only one listed that was created from federal territory rather than one of the 13 colonies/states. If nothing else the claim that Tennessee was "formerly part of North Carolina until 1796" should be corrected. Pfly (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But something that doesn't appear to be addressed so far is the distinction between areas which were claimed without a substantial settlement, versus those that were. (I suppose everything was claimed ;-) Tedickey (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking too hard and made this too difficult. I realized it was easy to fix and just made a small edit mentioning the brief status of Tennessee as the Southwest Territory. Pfly (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the section--it is misleading and says nothing about the 13 COLONIES, since the section covers post-1776 era.Rjensen (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason the 13 Colonies are notable independent of the other British colonies are because they became the first US states. This needs to be said. But there's probably a better way to say it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No the main reason they are notable is they revolted in 1775 and formed the United States of America in July 1776. The western territories were largely unsettled and of minor importance at that time. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Article's neutrality

Very surprised to find such an unashamedly one-sided and unbalanced article on wiki about an important historical event. It refers a couple of times to other British colonies that DID NOT rebel, because, it claims, "their geographical isolation and the dominance of British naval power precluded any effective participation..." and "Those other British colonies that had assemblies largely agreed with those in the Thirteen Colonies, but they were thoroughly controlled by the British Empire and the Royal Navy, so protests were hopeless." Highly contentious claims that needs more substantiation than a loose footnote to a secondary source. Equally, there is no discussion anywhere of the large loyalist populations in the 13 states - estimated at a third to a half depending on the state. The false impression is that the decision to rebel against Britain was unanimous in these states, which it clearly was not. In fact the rebels were simply better organised and more ruthless in steamrolling their loyalist opponents. If a lack of British military presence in the 13 states had one effect it was to allow rebel militia intimidation and violence against loyalist colonists, a subject that never enjoys much attention in the myth-making, self-serving accounts of the founding fathers and the American 'revolution' of which this article is a typical example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.112.213 (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Modern Map "British colonies in North America, c. 1750" Needs to Be Removed -- All Wrong

This map seems all wrong in not including inland Canada, etc., and in grouping the "13 colonies" as if that was an official unit of British administration.

It's attractive -- but all wrong factually and needs major reworking or removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very wrong indeed. For example British Honduras became British Honduras in 1798, taken by force by Britain from SPain; in 1750 it was still part of the Honduras province of the The Capitanía General de Guatemala, an administrative unit within the Vice-Royalty of New Granada. So why is it shown as British Honduras on a map purporting to display British Colonies about 1750? Michealt (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Map covering some text

I'm afraid I know little of wikipedia, but I'll bet some of you very smart gents can figure out how to make the map not cover some of the text. Thanks! BTW, you guys are doing a great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresavalek (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifteen colonies

There were fifteen British American colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America at the time of the American Revolution, not thirteen. The Wikipedia entry leaves out East Florida and West Florida, established by the Treaty of Paris of 1763. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgville (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There were also British colonies in what are now the Maritime Provinces in Canada. Only 13 colonies revolted. - BilCat (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how are they relevant to the subject? It is already well limited to the relevant colonies. The very first words are:

The Thirteen Colonies were part of...

CrispMuncher (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Revolution vs. rebellion

"thirteen revolutionary colonies of British North America" Why "revolutionary" an not "rebellious" if they were part of "British North America"?

Why "At the time of the Revolutionary War" why not "At the time of the deceleration of independence", as the former carries an American POV that it was a "revolutionary war" and not a war of independence? -- PBS (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on one's definitions and connotations of "revolution", "rebellion" and "war of independence". On another tack, a "revolution" is when the revolters/rebels win, and "rebellion" is when they lose. What's the difference between a "revolutionary war" and a "war of independence"? I don't really see a big difference, but perhaps there is one. The bulk of the colonists considered themselves British citizens, and just wanted representation in Parliament - taxation with representation. So I guess in that sense it is a revolution, in that they really weren't a separate people group or conqured land, aside from the Native Americans (who weren't rebelling as a whole from Britain). As an aside, to my knowledge, the British never have given parlimentary representation to anyone outside of the British Isles, and thus never had a real "imperial" Parliament. Finally, "Revelotionary War" appears to be a historical term in the US, whatever it means. The term may well have a differnt meaning/connotation now than it did then. - BilCat (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The political upheaval is typically (nearly exclusively, afaik) known as the American Revolution. The coinciding war is thus generally called the "American Revolutionary War". The argument that this is the result of "American POV" can be turned around to say that calling it otherwise is the result of "British POV". In cases like this, where there are clear strong national ties to the topic we go with the use in the country that has those ties.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Surly Cúchullain "thirteen revolutionary colonies of British North America" indicates an equally strong tie to Britain, or are you suggesting that the Philippines War has no "strong national ties" to America? Besides I did not suggest changing the words from "Revolutionary War" to "American War of Independence", I suggested changing them to "the deceleration of independence". As for the first one why not change it from "the thirteen revolutionary colonies" to "the thirteen colonies" as they have already been listed and so are defined without the need for an adjective? -- PBS (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

not much similarity to Philippines. The Thirteen had been created, settled and ruled by the British since thir founding, and until 1770s the residents were proud to call themselves "British."Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I still don't understand your objection to the current wording. What's the difference between a "revolution" and a "war of independence", in your view? What exactly is the POV you think it's implying here? - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we use either, but if you can not see the difference between the two then you would not mind me replacing "Revolutionary War" to "American War of Independence" ;-) but if you wish to see a deeper argument please see this archived section -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a deeper answer, but for your answer, which you've belatedly answered in an indirect way. There's no consenus to change anything here, so it can stand for now. I know some users feel replacing an American POV with a British one is being neutral! Anyway, the war itself began in 1775, with independednce being declared in 1776, after much debate, when it became clear the UK wasn't interested in reconcilation on anything but their own terms. So while one became the other, they aren't totally synonymous, with one encompassing a larger time period. I see no reason to change a general time period to a specific date either. The Lead of the American Revolutionary War article gives both terms, and that's probably where it should be handled. - BilCat (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010

"I know some users feel replacing an American POV with a British one is being neutral!" So you agree that the current wording carries an American POV. If you look at what I am suggesting I am not suggesting replacing an American POV with a British one. I am suggesting removing a word and changing a phrase. Remove the word "revolutionary" and replace "At the time of the Revolutionary War" with "At the time of the deceleration of independence". So do you have objections to theses changes? -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've said has been an objection to your suggested changes. Again, you don't have a consensus to change anything here. Time to move on. - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets salami slice it. What is it that you object to in removing the word "revolutionary" from "thirteen revolutionary colonies" so that the sentence reads "Contemporaneous documents usually list the thirteen colonies of British North America in geographical order, from the north to the south." --PBS (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. There is no POV here; "revelutionary" exists as a descriptor to define which colonies. I don't see a problem. - BilCat (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The thirteen colonies have already been defined in the first sentence of the article in a factual way "The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies from New Hampshire to Georgia that declared independence in July 1776 as the United States of America." So the adjective "revolutionary" that carries a specific non neural point of view is not needed (any more than a adjective such as "revolting" that would convey the same information but with a different biased point of view is needed).[11] As the adjective is not needed we should remove it as it carries a needless non neutral point of view. -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also don't agree that the current wording has any point of view. The terms used are only following the conventional, descriptive use in the country here described (and yes, this is part of British history too, but as its the events that created the US, the US clearly has a much stronger tie).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cúchullain, for someone who has been editing here for five years I am surprised that you have have such a cavalier attitude to WP:NPOV. Also I find it disappointing that while I am discussing this issue with you, you proceed to make an edit like this this one which replaces "The borders of these colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence ..." with "The borders of these colonies at the time of the Revolution ...". On reflection do you think that such an edit, given the conversation you are having on the talk page, is showing good faith? -- PBS (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I concur with Cúchullain's changes, as they are inline with the current consensus here. (Note that concensus does not require the consent of the main objector.) Also, "the time of the Declaration of Independence" specifices a certain time period, that of July/Summer 1776, which may be a false specificity. "The time of the Revolution" is much more general, covering 1775 to the early 1780s, and thus gives more leeway.

As to NPOV, I don't see that any of the terms being used here violate netrality. Both the American (or US-ian, to avoid offending some Latin Americans), and the British (or UK-ish, to avoid offending some Northern Irish), have preferred terms, but they overlap in meaning and time period, withotu being mutually exclusive. Which terms should be used in these articles is really a matter of editorial preference, not neutrality, especially since there aren't really any resonable alternatives to using American or British preference. This artice deals specifically with the 13 Colonies that became the USA, and thus is primarily an American topic. Articles primarily covering the British and their involvement in the Colonies at the time of the War, such as those on King George and contemporay British leaders and generals, would most likely use British-preferred terms. I don't know if there is a single article dealing with the British government, and its relations with the colonies during the war, aside from combat, but such an overview-type article might be both interesting and a worthy pursuit. - BilCat (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I don't have a cavalier attitude towards NPOV, I just don't happen to think this article violates NPOV. All it does is use the terminology typical in the United States, which I consider a matter of national variety of English. I don't think your suggestions would make the text more neutral; in fact I think they can cause problems where there were none before. For instance, in my edit you mention, I was editing some text that I myself had added earlier.[12] There I said "The borders of these colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence..." But later I thought better of it, because the borders of the Thirteen Colonies were not established at the time of the Declaration. Thus, "at the time of the Declaration" is inaccurate. Waffling around mentioning the word "Revolution" will cause many problems such as this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nether were the Colonies established at the time of the war. -- PBS (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Of course the colonies were long established, unless you're arguing that they were already independent states before the war even began (which was, at any rate, before the Declaration of Independence, meaning that choice of wording is still inaccurate). But whatever you call them, the borders of those colonies/states were not decided until years after the Declaration had been signed. So "Declaration" doesn't work here, but "Revolution" does, because that denotes a significantly broader period of time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"The borders of these colonies at the time of the Revolution contained territory now outside of the modern states," the problem is that as the period of "Revolution" is broad, so it is not clear what is being defined (if the territory did not change during the Revolution then whether "revolution" or "deceleration of independence" makes no difference from the POV of accuracy just bias). It is quite possible to take a snap shot in time say the July 4, 1776 and make a statement for that date, unless that is you can show that on that date the territory of these colonies did not include land now outside of territory of the modern day successor states. --PBS (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bias, just preference. I think we've just about exhausted the discussion here. Since there is no consensus here to change from American to British preference, can we please move on, per WP:STICK? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting changing to a British preference I am suggesting neutral wording replacing "Revolution" with "deceleration of independence", you have not made a case for using "Revolution" in place of the more neutral "deceleration of independence", particularly as the rest of the article is at present centred on the deceleration of independence. For example the 13 colonies could be listed alphabetically or in chronologically from the issuing of their first royal charters. Personally I have not problem with the current ordering as that is the main point of selecting the 13, but I see no reason why Revolution has to be used instead of deceleration of independence unless there is a factual reason for it, that has not been explained. -- PBS (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"''The borders of these colonies at the time of the Revolution contained territory now outside of the modern states, and which later became part of ten more states." I changed "Revolution" to the link American Revolution, a page about the era not the war itself. It is not clear exactly when the era ended. The use of the word "colonies" suggests a date of 1783 or earlier--because after 1783 they were states, not colonies. Looking at various pages and sources listed, the end of the Revolutionary era could be anywhere between 1783 and 1815. Many sources listed cite years in the 1780s: 1783, 1788, 1789. All of this makes it hard to determine what "the borders of these colonies" were, and how many states, or parts of states, were later made from territory outside the modern borders. I can't figure out what the ten states mentioned would be. Taking the borders up to 1784, I count 9 future states wholly contained within colonial borders, or 11 if you count Alabama and Mississippi, which were almost wholly contained, or 12 if you count Minnesota, which was only partially contained within the colonial borders. By 1786 the newly independent states had ceded lots of western land to the federal government. Working from just after Connecticut ceded its western lands, excepting the Connecticut Western Reserve, I count 4 future states wholly within colonial borders (actually state borders by now): Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, and Tennessee; or 9 if you count Alabama and Mississippi (mostly within existing borders), or 10 if you count Ohio, if you count Connecticut's Western Reserve. Anyway, given all this uncertainty and the problem with the term "colonies", I simply took out the bit saying, "which later became part of ten more states." In order to make a specific count you need to be more clear about what you are counting, and when. Pfly (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The text originally stated "5 states", which is how many came out of the "recognized" borders of the states, not their claimed territories. I'd like to go back to that version, if we can find a reliable source that states that specifically. Maine, West Virginia and Kentucky all came from within the recognized borders of Mass., Virginia, and Virginia, respectively. I don't remeber the other 2, but I can look later. As to the "Demarcation of Independence", I still prefer the general ter "Revelutionary War", as the former is too specific without need. - BilCat (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a lot of friction over a few sentences; I'm afraid that the discussion has turned away from PBS' initial concerns over using the word "Revolution". The point about the additional states line is that there were parts of the "13 Colonies" that are not part of those 13 states today. The sentence originally listed 5; Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The 10 states bit was added by Rjensen, who listed them here. This is evidently supposed to reflect everything in (most of) the territory claimed by the colonies/states, but I think it confuses the issue of what we're talking about.

When I made my wording change, I specifically had Tennessee in mind. In 1778, after the Declaration of Independence, North Carolina administered parts of Eastern Tennessee as NC counties. Later they ceded the area away and it became part of Tennessee. Looking at it this way, it's incorrect to say that at the time of the Declaration the borders of NC included this area, but it is true that they included the area during the broader era of the Revolution. If we're talking about the entire territory claimed by individual colonies/states, we run into the additional issue of the borders with British Canada not being settled until the Treaty of Paris and after (again, after the Declaration), which I think makes for a less than useful definition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the "claimed" areas were as actually specified in the colonial charters and as per borders worked out in the colonial era. These borders were fairly well defined and legally recognized. Of course they overlapped one another quite a lot. Wrangling over the borders didn't end until well into the 1800s, long after they were no longer colonies. Pfly (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of all that, it probably is bet to leave such statements out of the Lead altogether; they could be covered in depth elsewhere in the text. However, a non-specific statement that the territories of/claimed by the 13 colonies did become other states might be useful in the Lead, if it doesn't became a magnet for change again. I guess we'll see. - BilCat (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are they important

A poor and very unbalanced article, bordering on outright propaganda. It refers a couple of times to other British colonies that DID NOT rebel, because, it claims, of the presence of British forces: "Those other British colonies that had assemblies largely agreed with those in the Thirteen Colonies, but they were thoroughly controlled by the British Empire and the Royal Navy, so protests were hopeless." A highly contentious claim that needs more substantiation than a loose footnote to a secondary source. Equally, there is no discussion of the large loyalist populations in the 13 states - estimated at a third to a half depending on the state. The false impression is that the decision to rebel against Britain was unanimous in these states, which it clearly was not. If the lack of a British military presence in these states had one significant effect it was to allow rebel militia intimidation and violence against loyalist colonists, a subject that never gets much attention in the busy myth-making, self-serving accounts of the founding fathers and the American 'revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.112.213 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require the lede to explain in a nutshell why the topic is imortant. I prose to do so as follows: They revolted in 1775 in the American Revolution because they all had systems of self-government they were determined to preserve and defend. They formed the United States of America in July 1776. British colonies without self-government (in the West Indies and modern Canada) remained loyal to the crown.[cite Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History (2003)]. This seems a pretty straight-forward and non-controversial statement of why the "13" are important. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The 13 Colonies were important (notable) because they revolted, fought a war, and became the USA - that was already in the Lead. Why they did so isn't necessary in the Lead, escecially if it's an incomplete explanation. The reasons for the war were more complex than just their system of self-government, and putting that in the Lead is a bit misledeing. I don't have a problem dealing with it in the main text, but I do suspect there are other opinions on the matter that should be covered too, in passing. In depth coverage belongs in the Revolution article. - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I put it in the text--we of course have a long article on the American Revolution that doesn't need to be duplicated here. Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The explanation isn't really accurate. I've never seen any source saying that the Thirteen Colonies were distinguished from the other British colonies in that they had "well established systems of self government and elections based on the rights of Englishmen," nor have I ever seen protecting these governments given as a reason (let alone the reason) for the Revolution. The most common reason given is the dispute over Britain taxing the colonies and otherwise governing them without representation. Additionally, only one of the Intolerable Acts, (the Massachusetts Government Act), directly affected the government of Massachussetts, and it did not abolish the government.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the West Indian islands had long-established assemblies. Nova Scotia and West Florida also had "well established systems of self government". The glaring omission was Quebec which controversaly didn't. The tax/represntation thing is emphasised a lot, which tied into a wider sense that Britain was eroding its traditonal "liberty" and George III and his ministers were moving towards continentalist absolute monarch. In truth there were hundreds of factors behind the split, but I'm not really sure the distinctiveness of the specific thirteen colonies was one.

The article could say something about the fact the 13 colonies are only significant retrospectively. There was nothing that especially made these 13 different prior to the mid 1770s when they joined together and declared independence. There might have been more, as other colonies had many of the same objections to London. Invitations to the Continental Congress were sent out to a number of other colonies, but generally met with limited support, indifference or opposition. Equally there could have been less. I think it was seen as touch and go if Georgia, a much newer colony with a large share of immigrants, would join them. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The 13 colonies strongly emphasized the violation of the rights of Englishmen--for example, no taxation without representation. This was clear by the time of the Stamp Act protests long before 1775. The other British colonies lacked "responsible government" and had highly restricted franchises that limited power (as in Britain itself) to a small elite closely tiede to the Empire. Rjensen (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll need to provide some sources arguing that what set the 13 Colonies apart was their internal systems of government. Just as elsewhere the governments of the 13 colonies were controlled by a small elite intrinsically tied to Britain, and the issue of lack of representation was something felt across the Empire, including in Britain. It seems to me that what separates the 13 from the rest of the colonies is that they experienced all this, plus declared independence, fought and won a war, and became the United States, while the others didn't happen to go through those last three steps.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. most of the other colonies did not have assemblies; 2) the assemblies in the rest were controlled by planters and absentee landlords (who often lived in England not the colony); 3. in the 13 a majority of free men could and did vote, and selected their own judges and juries. 4. a very intense sense of rights of Englishmen developed in the 13, esp re taxation; 5. The British did not ignore the demands, they cracked down, sent in the army and ended self gov't in Massachusetts. This is all covered in Gipson and in Greene & Pole A Companion to the American Revolution (2004) Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The case of Nova Scotia is interesting. It had an assembly elected by the people, founded in 1758 and still operating today: Nova Scotia House of Assembly (see History of Nova Scotia). At the time Nova Scotia included New Brunswick (split off in 1784) and even part of Maine. When the revolution broke out the majority of Nova Scotians were Yankees--either born in New England or of parents who were. According to [13], "At the outset of the Revolution, this province [Nova Scotia] had seemed so much a northern extension of New England that many of its inhabitants as well as their Yankee neighbours down the seaboard had assumed that Nova Scotia, too, would come to join the republic. It looked almost inevitable. [...] But matters rose to a head with an actual American attempt to seize the province." This article, [14], explores the historiography of Nova Scotia and the American Revolution. It seems complicated, with many factors contributing to the colonies lack of general rebellion. The colony "was torn by conflicting forces, and in the end remained passively neutral." There were areas where "the fervors of revolution ran high", and some "outbursts against the Crown did occur", such as the Battle of Fort Cumberland led by Jonathan Eddy--an attempt to "bring the American Revolutionary War to Nova Scotia in late 1776." Other factors worked against rebellion. Halifax had strong mercantile ties to London. The war benefited Halifax. Most of the British troops going to fight in New England went by way of Halifax, the logistics of which brought military contracts and the like. Plus, "with the naval base for Royal Navy ships in the North Atlantic and Caribbean situated..adjacent to Halifax, how could a revolution be got up anyway?" Anyway, my point is that the special aspects of the 13 colonies mentioned above were not limited to the 13. Sometimes the colony of Nova Scotia, in the era of the revolution, is called the "14th colony". Pfly (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. As said above the other interesting example is Georgia, which didn't join the revolution at first and was on the line about until 1775. But again, no matter what we say, we need to see some sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a good source for why 13 colonies rebelled while the others did not. It cannot be previewed but here is its Google Books page: The Shaping of America: Atlantic America, 1492-1800. I'll try to find time to see what might be useful for this page. A quick nutshell while I'm thinking about it. Meinig devotes a whole section to the question of why were some British colonies in North America "loyal" and others "rebel", and why some that did not rebel were not fully "loyal", and some that did rebel were not fully "rebel". A quick run-down of those that remained in the British Empire:

• Newfoundland: No assembly, exempt from Navigation Acts, "shared none of the grievances of the continental colonies", cut off from contact with New England by British Navy, became "completely bound to Britain economically and politically".

• Nova Scotia: More complex. Halifax government "reluctantly" allowed the Yankees of Nova Scotia "a kind of de facto neutrality". The Continental Congress did little to assist overt rebellion in NS because they "viewed any venture in this region as marginal, costly, and risky." Plus, "without strong naval support there was little hope of sustained success so far from Boston and so near Halifax". Other factors too, such as the lack of cities, or even sizable towns, other than Halifax. So NS remained in the empire even if not fully "loyal".

• Canada (aka Quebec): Complex. Quebec Act of 1774 gave Canada formal cultural autonomy within the empire; "the American grievances had little relevance, and an American presence was more to be feared than favored for still-fresh historical and cultural reasons." Possible rebel sympathies in Montreal, but without help nothing much could be done (the rebel attempt to "help" failed, of course). Some French Canadians became rebels, in small numbers, some became rebel exiles from Canada after 1783. The entry of France raised the hope that the French Empire might be restored in North America, but American rebel leaders did NOT want that. The treaty of alliance with France contained secret clauses in which France "renounced forever" the right to Canada, Acadia, and Labrador. The lack of a French fleet to arrive in Canada dampened what rebel hopes existed. So Canada remained in the empire at the war's end, although its fate awaited treaty negotiation--since France and Spain along with the new USA had won the war, the fate of Canada, historically French, was up in the air until 1783.

• West Indies: A bunch of colonies here, but all basically the same in this regard. Although the assemblies of Jamaica, Grenada, and Barbados formally declared their sympathies for the American cause, the possibilities for overt action were sharply limited by power of British Navy & other factors. "The most that could be done was a bit of opportunistic trading with american privateers."

• Bermuda & the Bahamas: Food shortage crisis caused by British blockade of continental ports increasing already existing rebel sympathies. Formally both remained loyal, but "obvious sympathy [for the rebellion] led to widespread smuggling and aid." Both colonies were "passive allies of the Americans throughout the war." When an American squadron arrived in the Bahamas to seize all military stores the colony gave no resistance at all. Nevertheless, there was little chance of actively participating with the continental colonies due to British naval power. Also, the Bahamas were captured by Spain, but not until after Yorktown.

• East and West Florida: Relatively new royal colonies with minimal local government; in favor of military presence to secure area from Indians and Spanish. "Quarrels over alleged imperial usurpation of colonial autonomy had little meaning". A few minor rebel actions, but nothing serious. East Florida became a major bastion of the British as the war spread throughout the larger region; population swollen, economy stimulated; became the base from which British forces invaded Georgia and Carolinas.

That's all for now, gotta go. All this is basically a reaction to the idea that the Thirteen Colonies were distinguished from the other British colonies in that they had "well established systems of self government and elections based on the rights of Englishmen"--or that somehow the 13 were primed to rebel while the others were not. Pfly (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

very good work! I added it to the text. The other colonies did not have much self government--as in England, fewer than 2% could vote. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for doing all the work on the page itself. There are other things in the Meinig book that seem almost relevant enough to mention, but are probably better suited for the page about the war itself. I was struck by how the entry of France and Spain into the war against Britain altered the British strategy in significant ways. At first the British strategy was focused on the thirteen rebelling colonies, but when France joined the war openly (1778?) Britain "radically" changed its strategy (quotes from this book). The "entire empire was at stake and Britain was determined to protect the most valued parts of it." Everyone knows what the most valued parts were, right? "The rebellion on the continent became secondary to dominance in the West Indies". So British troops withdrew from Philadelphia and the force in New York became a "firmly anchored" but "narrowed enclave". Operations on the continent shifted to Georgia and Carolina, with the hope of gaining widespread loyalist support there--which didn't happen on a useful scale. Then Spain joined the war and seized West Florida. The combined naval strength of France and Spain put the West Indies in jeopardy. Barbados was threatened and moves to invade Jamaica were made. In reaction Britain changed strategy again, abandoning Carolina and shifting the army to Virginia, but "this was a salvage operation" and before long led to defeat at Yorktown. Reading these things I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if a French-Spanish force had captured Jamaica. Given that the assembly in Jamaica had formally declared its sympathy for the American cause, perhaps we would now speak of fourteen colonies. The topic seemed as least tangentially related to the question of why 13 colonies? An addition point Meinig makes is that although the war ended in 1781, negotiations "over the terms of dismemberment" lasted a long time. Until the peace treaty between Britain and the United States, as well as those with France and Spain, the American "geopolitical situation" was up in the air to some extent. The fate of Quebec and the Floridas, at least, was uncertain. That Britain decided to cede to the US the transappalachian lands clear to the Mississippi was not, as I understand, a given outcome. What would things be like if Britain had decided to keep some of those lands and instead cede East Florida to the US? Would we speak of fourteen colonies? ..anyway, all this seems unnecessary for this page, but I thought I'd mention them as at least tangential to why we talk about thirteen colonies today. Pfly (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fought the American Revolution

The thirteen colonies "fought the American Revolution". No, they "fought [the American War of Independence] for the American Revolution". -- PBS (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to say "fought the American Revolution". The only issue we have with it on Wikipedia is hyperlinking, as we have separate articles on the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War/American War of Independence. You're grasping at straws.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not perfectly acceptable because the British government "fought the American Revolution" the colonists "defended the American Revolution". "fought the American Revolution" implies "against", eg the "Americans fought communism in the Cold War" does not imply they fought for communism. The square brackets in the above was deliberate, it was not meant to be an attempt at a link, (and does not mean include it) but that it was implied by the use of the word "for". However as the American revolution is linked in the next paragraph for a balanced POV language there is no reason why we should not use the phrase "War of Independence" rather than "Revolutionary War" if a link to the war is desirable in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that in terms of usage, historians write "The United States fought the Cold War". President Franklin Pierce said "We fought the American Revolution to...etc" and this terminology is standard.Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two sides to a war, so of course one can write "we fought the war...". But if one say "we fought communism" or "we fought capitalism" then one fights against the "ism" not for it! One can fight in a revolution or against a revolution, but if one says "We fought the revolution" it implies it was against the revolution not for it. The usage you are using only works if by American Revolution is a synonym for "American Revolutionary War", and if one means that then as there is already a link to American Revolution in the lead ... -- PBS (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that reliable sources -- like current hstorians and old presidents --say "We fought the American Revolution". So it's standard usage.Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

perhaps it is a dialect difference, but unless one knows who the allegiance of the speaker how does one tell that they fought for the revolution? In this definitional line unless one already knows what the revolution was about one can not tell from the sentence whether they fought for or against the revolution, and usual English usage is that one fights against something not for it. For example if I write "Harry Bellasis fought the rebellion" can you tell if he was a Roundhead of a Cavalier?-- PBS (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Alas, PBS recommends the colonists "defended the American Revolution" when talking about soldiers fighting a war. That construction is never used this side of Antartica.Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No I did not! See above I suggested "fought [the American War of Independence] for the American Revolution" (the AWoI being optional as it is implied). -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well somebody signing himself PBS said "defended the American Revolution" yesterday. :) Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I no more suggested putting that phrase into the article than I did the phrase "Americans fought communism in the Cold War". -- PBS (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The current wording "fought the American Revolution" is not correct unless "fought" is a metaphor for "argued". They did not fight the American Revolution, they "fought for the American Revolution" , or they "fought against the British in the American War of Independence/American Revolutionary War for the American Revolution". -- PBS (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done some work. Better?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is much better. However unless Patriot is placed in quotes, "with the Patriot cause" carries a specific American POV as one could just as easily write "with the rebels' cause" to reflect a British bias. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"patriot" is the term used by contemporaries and historians. "loyalist" is the opposite group, and that term was likewise used at the time. "rebel" is not very useful because BOTH sides were rebels--the patriots rebelled against London, the Loyalists rebelled against their local governments. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"'patriot' is the term used by contemporaries" you will of course be able to source the use by a contemporary Member of the British government if it was in use by contemporaries. In this context it is a partisan word, just as the word rebel is: "we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately".[15] -- PBS (talk)

Uh, "patriot" is the conventional term for the rebel group in the scholarship. As Rjensen says, "loyalist" refers to the other side. You could argue that literally any terminology was "POV" and "biased", but historians have to call them something. If I wanted to be obnoxious I could argue that "loyalist" is biased, because they certainly weren't "loyal" to their colonies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The OED has this definition of "patriot": "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence." You can find British uses in 1776 (attacking Ben Franklin) online at p 145 also (Jamesd Boswell in 1776) page 7. Rjensen (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That explains the current wide usage of the term patriot in the English speaking world to describe the Taliban! "resistance movement, a freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint, which does not help you case that the term patriot is neutral. Further the term country is a very complicated one with several different meanings. For example is Northern Irland part of Ireland or part of the United Kingdom? It of course depends on ones point of view on what the term Ireland means and ... -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the terms patriot and rebel inchangeably in the context. A number of books I have, written by Americans, do as much. I'd even lean toward rebel over patriot, personally. The term "loyalist" is more complicated. Loyalists were not merely those who did not wish to participated in the rebellion. Loyalists came in many types, with many motivations. Calling them rebels against their local government is splitting hair, I think. In many case the local governments were not all that sure about the right course of action, especially in the early years of the conflict. In short, there are many terms to choose from, and I see no problem in mixing and matching. In general I find "rebels" slightly more accurate than "patriots". And "loyalists" has practically become a specialized term. ..and all this is my opinion, an American. Pfly (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

13colonies

what did the women do at home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.78.103 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My Project

I understand that this information has been viewed before posted since it is a .org. So i am trusting all info. given to me. I am doing a project on the Thirteen American Colonies this week and this i guess is my buddy for the project. Thanks. I will be making a game off of this info given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.169.21 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Population

We should list the black population statistics. 137.140.125.114 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: Where are the references for the population figures of the thirteen colonies cited in the article? The two references there only dealt with population growth, as far as I can tell. I found one unofficial figure (and breakdown) here: http://merrill.olm.net/mdocs/pop/colonies/colonies.htm , but it differs by almost 400,000 thousand. Additionally, the first ever U.S Census was performed in 1790, and the total quoted was 3,929,214. A huge leap of 64%, considering that active immigration were none existent at the time.

Thanks MishaKeats (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, A century of population growth from the first census of the United States to the twelfth, 1790-1900 (1909) p 9 (this is online) Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I could not find the cited numbers in the page. However, on page 15 (Table 4), the following are indicated instead:

1700 -- 275,000
1710 -- 357,500
1720 -- 474,388
1730 -- 654,950
1740 -- 889,000
1750 -- 1,207,000
1760 -- 1,610,000
1770 -- 2,205,000
1780 -- 2,781,000
1790 -- 3,929,625

Link

Thanks Misha Atreides (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

thirteen colonies

hi i need to remember the thirteen colonies and how to fing them on a map how do i do that and not forget?

please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.213.76 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Betsy Ross

When the 13 Colonies declared independence from British North America and Russian Alaska, a flag was made by Betsy Ross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.58.161.37 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ben Franklin quote

The Ben Franklin quote is interesting, but seems out of context in the intro., which is about answering: "what were the original 13 colonies?"

Maybe a later section comparing life in the colonies with that in England or Scotland would be a more appropriate place for this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Eight colonies?

I am an Amateur historian. Emphasis on amateur. Somewhere in my readings regarding the war for the independence of the thirteen American colonies I read that in the vicinity of 1777/78, about the time Washington had had some success with the win at Saratoga and France's approval, Washington =\|talk]] • contribs) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Population

The tables could use cleanung up. Here are some prettier ones, with the numbers lined up: 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Population of American Colonies

Year	Population
1625	1,980
1641	50,000
1688	200,000
1702	270,000
1715	435,000
1749	1,000,000
1754	1,500,000
1765	2,200,000
1775	2,400,000

Slaves imported into Colonial America

Years	Number (Source: Miller and Smith, eds. Dictionary of American Slavery (1988) p . 678)
1620–1700	21,000
1701–1760	189,000
1761–1770	63,000
1771–1790	56,000
1791–1800	79,000
1801–1810	124,000 (Includes 10,000 to Louisiana before 1803)
1810–1865	51,000
Total	597,000

Done As far as I can tell, all you did was change the alignment and modified the headings slightly. I agree that it looks better, and I've made the change. (Fwiw, I still don't think it looks great. Wiki markup often confounds me. Anyone should feel free to revert with explanation.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request: hatnote

Since American Colonial Period does not redirect to this article, there seems to be no reason for the {{confused}} hatnote. I suggest deleting it. --69.158.92.109 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Patriot" cause

See also Talk:Thirteen Colonies/Archive 1#Fought the American Revolution (March 2010)

The article currently says "although there was a degree of sympathy with the Patriot cause in several of them". Patriot is a biased word and should be placed in quotes. -- PBS (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No -- "Patriot" is the exact word. People today assume it has favorable vibes--but in 1770s it was a negative term in Britain --that's one reason the Americans favored it. The bias rules in Wikipedia have to do with the Wiki editors avoiding personal bias (POV), not with the terms used by scholars as in American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People by T. H. Breen (2010) Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We are not writing for an 18th century audience, and the OED definition that you provided on this talk page on the 12 March 2010, makes it clear whatever the meaning in the past that is not the meaning today. If you prefer we could substitute in the word rebels in place of the word Patriot, but I think that would introduced a different pov, which is why I suggest placing "Patriots" in quotes. Placing it in quotes is not an unusual thing to do see for example "http://www.nam.ac.uk/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/war-america/loyalists-patriots The War for America: Loyalists & Patriots" a little article at the British National Army Museum website. -- PBS (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Breen wrote a major book in 2010 = American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People by T. H. Breen (2010) with no quotes. As for the British Army website the first page compares two WORDS (and uses quotes for words) while the rest of the site talks about people and uses Patriot without any quotes, as on page 2, the second page has this statement: It has been estimated that the Patriots had the support of about 40 per cent of the colonial population. with no quotes. This is not some "strange" usage that needs quotes--it has been the standard English language usage for this group of people since the 1770s, and is used in the RS. You can see over 30,000 examples here on google books: (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=patriot+1776+loyalist&num=10) I looked at the first 50 citations and found zero examples of using quote marks. Rjensen (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposed quotes are not because the word is strange but because the use of the word implies that the men and women so labelled were patriots (rather than rebels), which is a biased assumption, particularly in an article about 13 British colonies. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Thirteen Colonies

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thirteen Colonies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "online":

• From Historiography of the British Empire: William G. Shade, "Lawrence Henry Gipson's Empire: The Critics." Pennsylvania History (1969): 49-69 online.
• From Banking in the United States: "Federal Reserve Online". The Federal Reserve System. Retrieved 2014-02-20.
• From Spanish–American War: Jonathan Krohn, "Review of Tone, John Lawrence, War and Genocide in Cuba 1895–1898. "H-War, H-Net Reviews." May 2008. online
• From Indigenous languages of the Americas: Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (15th ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. ISBN 1-55671-159-X. (Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect British Flag

The flag shown did not exist until 1801, long after the separation. It should be replaced with what Americans refer to as the King's Colours. Any objections? PrivateWiddle (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As this is not the article for the British Empire, and flag and infobox are incorrect for the time period, I've removed the entire infoxbox. I could not find a discussion in the infobox supporting it's use here, so if someone desires to restore it, please build a consensus here first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,

I am sorry to learn, from your user page, that you are currently unwell; I hope you will get better soon.

I agree with you (and also with @PrivateWiddle: about the flag) that the Infobox you removed was inappropriate for the present article, and I very much liked your suggestion (in your edit summary at the time) that the Infobox from the article on British North America would be a good candidate.

Please may I therefore suggest that we include it now? If you both agree, then please kindly let me know here and I will apply the change, unless one of you would prefer to do the honours.

Thank you for your consideration, and get well very soon.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have several chronic illnesses that act up at various times, and currently have an accute bronchial infection, no fun that. For reference, because it was not easy to find, this is the revert from 2013. I don't have a problem using the infobox used in the BNA article, although not all parameters will be relevant here. Partly this is due to the longer period in which the 13 Colonies were governed by England/Britain. - BilCat (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I too have bronchial infections form time to time and can certainly understand, to some extent, how difficult it must be for you right now. I hope your health will improve before too long.

Thank you also for your support to my proposal above. Perhaps we could start with the Infobox used in the British America article, which has more of the earlier dates, and just replace the long list of modern states with USA and Canada, among a few other tweaks? I am confident I could come up with something appropriate.

It's late here now, but I'll draft something in a sandbox tomorrow, and then send you the link for your evaluation, out of courtesy. I'd be grateful, then, to have your comments for any additional improvements you'd deem appropriate, if you have the time and inclination.

Thank you for your cooperation so far.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 22:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,
I hope you're feeling much better today. Whenever convenient, please would you review the draft of the proposed infobox, and kindly suggest any improvements you deem necessary? If you think it's fine as it is, then I'll add it into the article. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors,
I am leaving the present message, out of courtesy to other editors interested in the present article, and seeking consensus—as per @BilCat:'s suggestion above, @17:23, 6 July 2013—in favour of adding the new infobox I created a few days ago.
I will wait until next Friday 22 January and, if I haven't received anyone's dis/approval, I will add the infobox into the article but, if anyone objects for whatever reason, then please feel free to amend or remove the infobox. I have enjoyed developing it and would be delighted to help improve or create similar infoboxes again if asked. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I think your proposed infobox looks good. Any tweaks can be made in the article. My only minor issue is with the map, but I have no clue how to update it to show the borders of the original colonies. Hopefully someone can address that later. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,

Thank you for your reply, and please don't worry; I understand.

Thank you also for your support. You make an excellent point about preferring a map that shows the extent of the original borders; I had not thought about that and I am thankful for your suggestion. I'll look for one now and, if I find it, then I'll apply it, along with other tweaks, as it is most likely that some of the original, northern borders included areas now in Canada and, therefore, I'd have to include that element in the infobox.

I'll work on this now, and then ping you again when done. Thank you very much for your advice, BilCat.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 19:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,

I have found this map (1664-1783), which I think meets your suggestion; unfortunately, there seems to be a copyright issue about it, outside of the US. None of the other maps available appears suitable, except possibly this one, although it already features in the article itself. Please kindly advise? Thank you.

Finally, I couldn't find any evidence that Canada benefited from any loss of territory belonging to the original Thirteen Colonies, so I'll leave the infobox as it currently is.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 20:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,
 Done without any change of map, at 21:24 today. As you suggested earlier, further tweaking can be done to the infobox from within the article. I remain available if I can help some more, and thank you for your advice and leadership.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Map Incorrect

The map is misleading - it should include Maine, which was part of Massachusetts.2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And West Virginia, which was part of Virginia.--Khajidha (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Better map and caption substituted. WCCasey (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@WCCasey: Dear WCCasey,

Thank you very much for replacing the map with a more accurate one. As you may have noticed in the above section about the incorrect British flag, @BilCat: and myself had agreed, back in January, on adding an improved Infobox that I subsequently developed. However, I couldn't decide which would be the best map to include, out of ignorance on my part. I am therefore really glad you completed the journey for us!

Thank you once again, including for all your other contributions to our encyclopedia.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 18:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks also, WCCasey. That's the type of map I had in mind, but I couldn't find one suitable. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dear BilCat,

I hope you have fully recovered from the health issues you experienced a couple of months ago, and that you are keeping well. All is well here, and Spring is arriving slowly this year.

Thank you for also thanking our colleague WCCasey for changing the map, which is the one I mentioned in my last edit above, at 8:58pm on 17 January, when I wrote: "except possibly this one", but which I didn't select at the time because it already featured in the article itself and still does, thereby now being duplicated.

Therefore, I would suggest that we delete it from the gallery of maps in the "Growth" section, which will also improve that section's use of the page. However, if you disagree, then please feel free to revert my edit.

Thank you for your cooperation, BilCat, and please keep well.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done BilCat; I changed my mind, since the map in the "Growth" section is included in a useful timeline, and also has an informative caption. I apologise for wasting your time.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Population Statistics

Hello, Some of the cited material is considerably old.

e.g. U.S. Bureau of the Census, A century of population growth from the first census of the United States to the twelfth, 1790–1900 (1909)

This reference uses "Surnames" as written on the census as a way to determine ethnicity. This could be a problems as original name spellings may not of been used, or could of been altered. For example: Klein vs. Cline, Schmit vs. Smith. It also assumes that non-British people who arrive early in the colonies assimilated into a British tongue and culture:

"The ancestors of the bearer of an Irish or Dutch name may have arrived in the first shipload of immigrants who landed on the shores of Virginia, Manhattan, or New England, so that at the time of the First Census the descendant enumerated possessed few or none of the characteristics of the nationahty indicated."

A population study that is more recent, and includes other sources (church records, etc) should be considered for determining ethnic heritage percentages form a colonial time. Contemporary sources, sometimes sight that the presence of certain ethnic groups as being large enough to actually have an influence on local dialects. This implies that there may be more variation in ethnic diversity than can be determined from census records. And in counter to the quote above...it appears that contemporaries did not agree with a blanketed assumption that people readily assimilated.

See example: The History of the Province of New-York, from the First Discovery: To which ...By William Smith 1776

"English is the most prevailing language amongst us, but not a little corrupted by the Dutch dialect, which is still so much used in some counties, that the sheriffs find it difficult to obtain persons sufficiently acquainted with the English tongues, to serve as jurors in the courts of law."

https://books.google.com/books?id=MqZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA271&dq=New+York+dress&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj85PzGz6XOAhVJbj4KHTtwDoYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=dialect&f=false

Places like New York and Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent North Carolina and New Jersey where large portions of Dutch, German, Swiss, and to a lesser extent Swedish, Finn and others settled should have the point made that an accurate ethnic count may not be possible and only estimates can be provided due to things like anglified names.

This type of info is important as citizenship means something very different than ethnicity. And explains the variation in personal perspective, biases and even voting tendencies. The book Hopeful Journey, 1992 cited primary sources explaining what happens when a colony (in this case PA) has a significant population of a different ethnicity (German, Swiss, Dutch) and how that can swing a vote during colonial times...and the changes that happen due to the bias of voting block. In this case property rights and arms.

Sincerely, Tara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimumdiesel (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Relation with the stars and stripes of the flag

Is it a strange idea to mention the relation with the American flag in the article? Under the banner of "cultural significance" or "lasting legacy" or whatever. In the article about the flag it is mentioned that the 13 stripes refer to the 13 colonies, and that originally the number of stars was also 13. So I think it would make sense to also make (short) notice of this fact in this article, and link to the article about the flag. Anyone against this idea? RagingR2 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. I have added a sentence to the article with a link to the American flag article.

Dilidor (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Never provinces

The word "province" was never part of the official name of any of the British colonies that later formed the United States. Province should be removed from all articles about British colonies in N. America, and/or wikilinks from this article should be changed to accurate articles. Use of the word "province" in this context is unsourced original research. WCCasey (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "province" is used in many colonial charters. For example, the Charter of Carolina, which says: "...we do, for us, our heirs and successors, erect, incorporate and ordain the same into a province, and call it the Province of Carolina, and so from henceforth will have it called."

That seems rather clear. Others: Charter of Maryland and Charter of Georgia. And here is a book of colonial charters, searched for "province of": America's Founding Charters: Primary Documents of Colonial and Revolutionary Era Governance, Volume 1. Not every hit is relevant, but many are.

If secondary sources are wanted in addition to these primary sources, well, here's something from Columbia University Press, found quickly online:

The Columbia Documentary History of Race and Ethnicity in America.

There are many many other secondary sources that use "Province of X". Pfly (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pfly has not found a single reliable secondary source that uses the term--, The term seems to be defunct and modern Reliable sources. He is quoting centuries-old primary sources, which Wikipedia warns about. (wp:Primary = primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Using particular words in a charter doesn't make them official titles - the title of this article is "Thirteen colonies". All of these colonies were entities within the British Empire, which never referred to them as provinces because they didn't meet the definition of provinces. In India, on the other hand, there was a central colonial government (the British Raj), and some subsidiary divisions were officially titled provinces. Plus, as Rjensen points out, none of these uses of "province" in reference to any of the thirteen colonies is linked to a reliable secondary source. The Columbia document just quotes primary sources.

Read the United States Declaration of Independence. The only time the word "province" is used is in reference to Canada:

• "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
• "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province [Quebec], 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 states"
• "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States" WCCasey (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What's missing here is some RS for Casey's claim The word "province" was NEVER part of the official name of any of the British colonies that later formed the United States. In fact the term was used in official documents: see for example Title page Acts of Assembly Passed in the Province of New-York, from 1691 to 1725 (1726) Many of the laws passed by the colonial legislature refer explicitly to the "Province of New York." So let's leave well enough alone. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the claim is extraordinary given the simplicity with which abundant reliable sources can be found to the contrary. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, good - we finally have some sources (at least to establish that the term "Province of New York" was once in use). Links to these need to be placed in the article, along with counter-examples and some explanatory text. Article text provides no justification for the title, so there should at least be a cite tag for now. Some other articles, such as History of New York, repeat the unexplained use of "Province of New York", while still other articles do not use the term at all. Many of those same old documents hyphenate "New-York", but no one is insisting on using that spelling. Historical spelling was notoriously variable, especially in the press, and maybe there never was a single "official" version.

Editors of an encyclopedia need to be able to agree on what a subject is properly called, or explain why multiple terms are used. I'm fine with mentioning in the article that some older documents use the term "province" (and also the hyphen), but still haven't heard a compelling case to use "Province" in the title. Can we maybe find a mutually agreeable and more appropriate alternative? WCCasey (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WCCAsey has not told us what RS he is relying upon for his claim The word "province" was NEVER part of the official name of any of the British colonies that later formed the United States.. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we agree that King George III would have used accurate nomenclature in his speeches and royal decrees? Here are one of each - from 1775, along with a response from the Continental Congress (granted - these three all refer only to Massachusetts). The only occurrence of the word "province" has a lower-case "p", so is not meant to be part of a proper name. WCCasey (talk)

• Proclamation of Rebellion
• Response of the Continental Congress
• His Majesty's most gracious speech to both Houses of Parliament, on Friday, October 27, 1775. Uses both "colonies" and "province" un-capitalized. WCCasey (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

well no--that would be a controversial new interpretation of a primary source. We need a reliable published secondary source. In any case--the first two documents do not mention any colony by name; the third is explicit: Parliament declared in your last session that a rebellion existed within the province of the Massachusetts Bay, Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to agree that 1) better sources are needed, and 2) the contemporary sources we've looked at so far don't establish "province" one way or the other. One of two courses can be followed: 1) see who can find the most convincing, reliable secondary sources for these titles (with explanatory text added to the articles), or 2) change the article titles and wording to something consistent that we can all agree on. WCCasey (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

the best solution is to drop the debate. WCCasey is clearly not basing his argument on RS. Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's be civil - no need to use weasel words like "clearly". Doing some quick searches through modern histories, I can see that there are (and were back then) political overtones to use of one term or another. "Province" was preferred by those like Thomas Hutchinson (governor), who wished to convey a sense of a settled and orderly polity. Disgruntled residents like Continental Congress delegates preferred the term "colony" with its more oppressive connotations. Modern authors continue this split, without a clear consensus.

I was hoping for support in changing these article titles to something more neutral but, since that isn't happening, will let it drop for now. Anyone interested in the question can read about it here. If I come across a good history that discusses this topic, I'll work it into an article somewhere. And, by the way, use of "province" still needs sources. WCCasey (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What would be a more neutral term? I did some more research and came to the same general conclusion I think you did—that terms like colony and province were (and are) used somewhat interchangeably, but sometimes with political overtones and connotations. Neither term seems particularly neutral in this sense.

As for "official names"...I tried to find a good secondary source that said bluntly "the official name of X colony was 'Province of X' or 'Colony of X'," or whatever. I couldn't find anything so direct, though some sources seem to approach it. But in searching I found many examples of "Colony of X" or even just "X" used in official-like ways. My sense now is that other than a few cases over specific time periods there is not going to be a truly official name. And that in most cases the most common name, in primary and secondary sources, is simply "X". Like current day US states. Most of Wikipedia's pages on states, like Iowa, make no mention of an "official name", even though the laws and constitutions that created the states say "State of" or "Commonwealth of" (eg, the Constitution of the State of Iowa; "free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa".). Obviously we can't title the page about colonial New York "New York". And "New York (colony)" is ugly.

Maybe—probably—there just isn't a simple solution for all the Thirteen Colonies. Maybe some are best called "Colony of X", some "Province of X", "Dominion of X", etc. This is how we have it now, as far as I can tell. More sources that establish such names would be good, of course. In my digging around I found this possible decent source for New York:

English Colony and Province, from the Historical Society of the New York Courts, which seems rather official. It says things like: "Charles II died in 1685, and the Duke of York became King James II of England. Because the patent-holder and the Crown were one, the legal status of the Colony of New York changed became the royal Province of New York." And, "From 1692 forward, the English Privy Council administered the Province of New York..." Also: "...James II annexed New York to the Dominion of New England, established two years earlier to consolidate the colonies of New England under a single administration. Governor Thomas Dongan handed the Province of New York over to the Dominion's governor... The page goes on to talk about the "Provincial Assembly", and the First through Fourth "New York Provincial Congresses", and how that body eventually became the "Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York". And I see we have a page for New York Provincial Congress.

Also, as far as I can tell, the term "province of X" is common enough in secondary sources. For example South Carolina: A History, University of South Carolina Press, 1998; "...what is now South Carolina was part of a much larger entity, the province of Carolina." Taxation in Colonial America, Princeton University Press, 2008; "...Charles II granted...William Penn a "Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania." (p. 56); "...province of South Carolina" (p. 62); "...the province of New Hampshire" (p. 130); "...the province of Pennsylvania" (p. 221). And The American Colonies: From Settlement to Independence; "...in 1639 Gorges obtained a royal charter for his lands as the Province of Maine..." (p. 39). And Historical Dictionary of Colonial America, generally. Perhaps one could argue that the lowercase 'p' in "province of X" means it is not "official", and maybe so. Then again we commonly use the same style on Wikipedia, saying lowercase 's' "state of X", despite the official names being capital 'S' "State of X". For example, "state of Iowa" in Flag of Iowa, List of cities in Iowa, "state of California" in List of counties in California, etc etc etc. And in any case, a Wikipedia page title does not mean the name is official.

Anyway, it seems clear enough to me that the original argument here, "the word "province" was never part of the official name of any of the British colonies that later formed the United States", is not true in all cases. And the suggestion, "'province should be removed from all articles about British colonies in N. America...", is too sweeping. A case-by-case approach would be better, I think, even if it is more work. As for page titles, maybe "Colony of" would be better than "Province of" in some or even all cases. I'm not sure.

Finally, sorry for writing so much. I am genuinely curious about official names of colonies, where and if they exist. Pfly (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks Pfly--that's good work. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "colony" is more neutral than "province". There's no argument that the Thirteen Colonies were all colonies. The first sentence of each article would contain "also known as Province of..." Then, the fact that some contemporary writings used that term would be noted - with a refcite to a more modern secondary source - later in the article. WCCasey (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term "Province" is useful, because, as in the case of the "Province of Carolina", it serves to distinguish an entity that ceased to exist in 1712 from the entity that took its place, yet both were colonies. I suppose that point depends on whether or not there was an interregnum between then and the establishment of the provinces of North and South Carolina, the length of which seems to be debated. The province of Carolina was also referred to as the Palatinate of Carolina or a "County Palatine". The philosopher John Locke, personal secretary to Lord Shaftesbury, one of the Lords Proprietor of the colony, devised its "constitutions" and called it by both names. Maryland was also a palatinate. My understanding is that the "Province of Carolina" as an official entity disappeared with the dissolution of the privileges of the County Palatine, but the colony of Carolina remained. I assume it was the same with Maryland. Carlstak (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Appears the name Province of NJ was certainly in use in 17th/18th centuries.

• Province of New Jersey, divided into East and West, commonly called the Jerseys map 1777
• The Fundamental Constitutions for the Province of East New Jersey in America, Anno Domini 1683
• The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey, to and With All and Every the Adventurers and All Such as Shall Settle or Plant There - 1664
• The Grants, Concessions and Original Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey, the Acts passed during the Proprietary Governments, and other material Transactions before the Surrender thereof to Queen Anne. The Instrument of Surrender, and her formal Acceptance thereof; Lord Cornbury's Commission and Instructions Consequent thereon / by Aaron Leaming and Jacob Spicer 1758 Djflem (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Maryland: "Therefore We have Given, and for Us, our Heirs, and Sucessors, do Give by these Presents, as full and unrestrained Power,... unto the aforesaid now Baron of Baltimore, and to his Heirs and Assigns, by themselves, or by their Captains, or other Officers to summon to their Standards, and to array all men, of whatsoever Condition, or wheresoever born, for the Time being, in the said Province of Maryland,...." Charter of Maryland, §12. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Pennsylvania: The earliest official documents there suggest that Pennsylvania was considered a ‘province’ during its early years. The founding Charter of 1681 states, “wee [Charles II] doe hereby Erect the aforesaid Countrey and Islands, into a province and Seiginiorie, and doe call itt Pensilvania.” In 1682, the first series of laws enacted to govern Pennsylvania are headed, “The Great Law Or the Body of Laws of the Province of Pennsilvania and territorys thereunto Belonging.” (Not surprisingly, they seem to have ignored the “and Seiginiorie” part of the Charter and opted for ‘Province.’) In 1728 the petitioners who wanted to establish the county of Lancaster petitioned “the Honourable Patrick Gordon Esq’r Governor of the Province of Pensylvania.” This may have persisted until the 1776 constitution, which was called a ‘Plan or Frame of Government for the Commonwealth or State of Pennsylvania.” (images of these documents can be found, as of April 2017, at http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/documents/). 63.66.64.247 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)David Carmicheal (PA State Archivist)

Article scope overlap

It turns out that the term "Thirteen Colonies" was coined during the American Revolution, to refer to those colonies which were in revolt. There is a history preceding the Revolution of course, apparently spanning some 20 years, during which these 13 colonies began to collaborate more closely. But prior to the Continental Congress of 1774, there was in no way any polity or entity known as "the Thirteen Colonies". At the time, there were twenty British colonies in America, and which of these twenty would become part of the "thirteen" would only be decided on the eve of the revolution. Therefore, it is misleading for this article to suggest that the "Thirteen Colonies" were an entity that existed during 1732-1776 (let alone "1607-1776"). The main article covering the colonial history of the United States would be colonial history of the United States; the main article to cover the history of British America would be British America.

So there is a lot of WP:CFORK going on here; I do think "Thirteen Colonies" can be a standalone page, but it will have to focus on the process of increasing collaboration on the eve and during the revolution, say, the twenty-year period of 1763-1783. It is also questionable if "Infobox former country" is appropriate here rather than at British America, or if possibly this entire page should be merged into British America.

Yet another possibility (presumably the historically correct one) would be to treat "Thirteen Colonies" as an entity, from the British point of view, existing 1776-1783 i.e. it is the British term for the United States prior to their recognition. In this case, we have a scope overlap with History of the United States (1776–89).

Interestingly, I found the phrase "thirteen colonies" used in 1720 (Abel Boyer), i.e. before the partition of Carolina and before the establishment of Georgia; this thus refers to eleven out of the later 13 colonies, plus Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I then found a reference to "the thirteen colonies, now in arms" dated 1776 (John Roebuck), i.e. referring to the subset of those 13 out of 20 which happened to be in revolt; apparently the phrase acquired the quality of a proper name over the next few years, indicated by the use of capitalisation, "Thirteen Colonies" by in 1779 (in The Critical Review). --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree--this is not a narrow term. In fact the term for 75+ years has been used by the RS to cover --for the entire colonial period after 1600--the area that became the USA in 1776. Furthermore many social and cultural non-political topics are covered (like slavery, trade, voting, law, religion, and food). Look at wide range of topics and dates in titles of books and articles: 1) The American Heritage History of the Thirteen Colonies (1967); 2) Life in the Thirteen Colonies, 1650-1750 (1990) 3) The Molasses Trade of the Thirteen Colonies (1948); 4) Food and Recipes of the Thirteen Colonies (1997); 5) A History of US: Making Thirteen Colonies: 1600-1740 (textbook) (2012); 6) The Political and Legal Structures of the Thirteen Colonies (2008). 7) Voting in provincial America: A study of elections in the thirteen colonies, 1689-1776 (1977); 8) The Atlantic Frontier of the Thirteen American Colonies and States: Essays in Eighteenth Century Commercial and Social History (1966); 9) "The statutory law of slavery and race in the thirteen mainland colonies of British America" (1977); "Postal Service in the Thirteen Colonies" (1966); 10) The wine trade of the Thirteen Colonies (1949). Rjensen (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You do not "disagree", if you read what I have just written, you just support one out of several possibilities I have outlined. There is no single accepted usage of the term in "the RS". "Making Thirteen Colonies: 1600-1740" does not equate the claim that "the Thirteen Colonies existed in 1600".

I completely agree that "Thirteen Colonies" is a generic, loose term for "the history of the British colonies in America during the decades leading up to the American Revolution". This does not establish the existence of a "former country", and you seem to support the option of removing the infobox and making this a WP:SS sub-page of Colonial history of the United States. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The following are the facts:

• There were 13 contiguous colonies only with the foundation of Georgia in 1732 (i.e, there were 12 during 1712-32, and eleven before that).
• The term was not historically used prior to 1776.
• In historiography, it is now used as a loose term for the period of coagulation and cooperation that preceded the American Revolution.

There is more than one single conclusion we can draw from these facts for the purposes of Wikipedia, and I do not have an opinon on which is the correct one, so far I have merely been pointing out the facts, and I do not think you have disagreed with any of these.

It will be reasonable to use the historiographical sense.

In this case, I am pointing out that this page has severe WP:CFORK problems (c.f. the section title I have chosen), and I am genuinely asking for your input on how to fix these. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with WP:CFORK -- the rule there is This page in a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. a) it was not created by a split; b) multiple overlapping articles do not "advocate a different stance". the bad CFORK Results from a bitter debate among editors and how to treat a subject, so they have two antagonistic articles. What we have here is a very complicated history stretching over two centuries with many different political, economic, social, and cultural, racial, military, constitutional topics. If you put them all together he will have a gigantic article that is far larger than Wikipedia wants. This article has 47,000 bytes, which is a good size for most users. For example Colonial history of the United States runs 130,000 bytes And has rather little overlap with this article. Colonial American military history adds another 33,000 bytes; History of religion in the United States has 114,000 bytes, much of it on the colonial era. And of course Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies adds another 42,000 calories. etc. The colonial era ends in 1776 because that is when the 13 colonies became 13 states. The British gave up colonial government for the 13 in 1776 (except for a while in Georgia). The notion that 13 colonies is best reserved for " the decades leading up to the American Revolution" has no basis in the historiography. That is simply not how historians have ridden about it. I have been glancing at recent textbooks, and they typically use the "13 colonies" to cover the entire pre-1776 era. For example David Kennedy best-selling textbook The American Pageant: A History Of The American People (2016) states Starting in the 17 century, England established thirteen colonies in North America." and "The thirteen colonies were quite different from one another." and so on. Rjensen (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"United Colonies"

I have been checking how this article is linked. It is sometimes piped, as United Colonies, and linked from the United Colonies disambiguation page. The reason being, apparently, the "United Colonies" was the term used in the early phase of the revolution, i.e. in 1774-1776 prior to the declaration of independence. The term "United Colonies" is not presently in the article text, and it should be introduced, possibly in WP:BOLD, as part of the lead section, and properly referenced.

I assume this is the main referent for the term "Thirteen Colonies", i.e. 1774/6 from the US perspective, and 1774-1783 from the British one. I am still not saying there should not be some summary of the developments in the previous decades, just as long as it is understood that this is under WP:SS in order to avoid unmanageable content forking, but it is pointless to argue what period exactly this covers ("1607" vs. "1600" vs. "1763" vs. "1740") because this is about historical periodisation, not about the "establishment" of a polity (hence the "infobox former country" is misplaced). --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

id rather it be called Colonial America.. regardless i wanted to answer a question... Whats bigger Texas or the Thirteen Colonies and i searched the page and there was no land area stats in the infobox. 2602:306:32D8:24D0:D429:EF06:EF86:96DE (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that History of the Thirteen Colonies be merged into Thirteen Colonies. I am a little concerned that the "History of" article may be a POV fork (due to it being overly sourced to one book)... but even if not, we don't need two articles on the same subject, and this article seems to be the logical target for the merger. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge. There is little point for a fork of the main overview article of a historical topic, perhaps the articles on the history of the individual colonies could also benefit. Dysklyver
• Support merge because the "History of the Thirteen Colonies" is essentially the same article as this one, and risks being a POV fork overly dependent on one book as a source. Recommend doing the book as its own article if anyone is up to it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge the History article is either entirely redundant or can be an odd POV fork - that is not to say various sub-articles of specific RS supported sub-topics or lists, are or would be inappropriate. (Blueboar, you could make a new career here about these types of articles and mergers, good on you for taking the initiative to remove/organize stuff that just builds-up, probably in part through inertia.) (Let me add, the Richter source is a good book, though). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh... sure.. I did not mean to imply that the source was bad, or that there was not good material in the article. Nor did I mean to imply any wrong doing on the part of the article creator. I get concerned about inadvertent POV whenever any article is based primarily on one source, no matter how good that source is. It could be that the article creator was simply unaware that an overview article on the colonies already existed. Still... we don't need two articles on the same topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, it's been awhile since I read it, but just from memory, Richter's great focus and depth was pre-Colombian US (and the thirteen colonies are obviously post-Colombian - which he covered, somewhat, too). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge agree with Alanscottwalker. Richter's reputation rests on his work on Indians & this current article covers far more topics, with a very wide range of current scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge Carlstak (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The Thirteen Colonies article and the history of the Thirteen Colonies article cover different things, much like Ottoman Empire and history of the Ottoman Empire. The history article provides somewhat in-depth coverage of the events of the era. The Thirteen Colonies article provides a broad overview of the events that occurred, as well as a broad overview of things like slavery, religion, government, and historiography. The fact that that the current history article relies too much on Richter is irrelevant to this discussion. Both articles badly need improvement and more sources, and as far as I can tell no one has added much to the Thirteen Colonies article in the last couple years, except for a (poor and unsourced) history section that I largely copied from colonial history of the United States. "Merging" these articles will simply result in the deletion of material useful to the reader. Also note that the two articles taken together, minus the "History" section of the "Thirteen Colonies" article (edited to add, also minus the lead section of the history article), are at 73 69 kb of readable prose size. Per Wikipedia:Article size, articles larger than 60kb should "probably should be divided." Orser67 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Merge When that page first appeared, I posted on Talk that it was completely redundant, and I suggested that any new or helpful nuances would be far more profitable on the Thirteen Colonies article. Merge them. —Dilidor (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge I agree that the two articles are similar enough that merging into a single article is better. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

_____________________

Merger accomplished. —Dilidor (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Links

Dilidor, there is long-standing editor consensus for these few links and two editors have reverted some of your delinking. The few links give further context for the reader. So, propose them one by one here, and make your case on the talk page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll just briefly give my thoughts here. I tend to agree that overlinking is a problem and the lead here could certainly suffer. That being said, in its current form, I don't think it's in bad shape, and I think the link to British America -- putting the colonies in a wider western hemisphere context -- is important enough that the link should be included. Other than that, Dilidor, I think I agree with all of your recent changes. As ever, if consensus is against me, so be it! Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: As I explained on the Talk page of the British America article, my contention is that the entire article expounds upon the topic of "British possessions in the New World." Linking to a separate article on the same topic merely lures the reader away from this article, without offering any further insight. I'm trying to reduce the over-linking on the article so that the links are helpful rather than distracting.

The bigger issue is Alanscottwalker's propensity for engaging in revert wars, all the while claiming "consensus" when only two or three people have weighed in on the talk page. This is at least the third time that Alanscottwalker has engaged in this behavior, and once again we have only three people involved in the discussion—a discussion that is not even one day old! Yet he persists in claiming that he has "consensus" while he continues to revert revert revert. Stop reverting and allow the discussion time to gel. —Dilidor (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Dilidor, it is you who revert wars, and the links here are not distracting, they give very relevant, pertinent context to the reader. You are sorely confused demonstrating the need for the links as the Thirteen Colonies and British America are not the same thing. Moreover, the British America link eliminated the need for two other links. Other links have been in this article and are presumed to have consensus, you need to get a new consensus on the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker is correct. Carlstak (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Some links should be added to the first paragraph for consistency. I suggest North America, United States of America and perhaps Protestant, all of which are relevant to this article. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Land area?

How large were the 13 colonies in square miles? Thanks. ➧datumizer  ☎  05:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplication in the lead

The last paragraph of the lead duplicates the first paragraph. So, I made this edit which was rolled back in a bunch of edits. Can we get less duplication? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not clear what the duplication is. Present version works, however. —Dilidor (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethic diveristy?

The section on Global trade and immigration includes a sentence that reads "These immigrants traveled to all of the colonies, but the Middle Colonies attracted the most and continued to be more ethically diverse than the other colonies."

I don't have access to the source material referenced by this sentence. Is this supposed to say "ethically" or "ethnically"? SloppyG (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access either, but with my usual boldness I made the change as pretty much demanded by context. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)