Talk:American Revolutionary War

B-status met

Article progress Apr-Oct 2020 to meet Projects B-status at Wikipedia: article is 99kB and 15708 'prose size' (text only).

- B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”.

- B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed 20% to “readable prose size”; tactical detail, intimate factoid, future impact, and elements unrelated to the American war for independence is moved to Notes as a stop-gap-gambit for Talk and Article stability - for future consideration by each RfC at Talk.

- B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is a five paragraphs related to article material. The topic core is addressed in four sections: Introduction-Infobox, Background, The war, and Aftermath.

- B4. Free from grammatical errors, met by a line-by-line copy edit with the assist of 28 editors and 3 bots.

- B5. Supporting infobox and images. Balance is maintained among scholarly approaches: British and American, military and naval, American and foreign assistance.

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Originally TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

AWR international perspective: naming conventions

Re: editor interest in an "international perspective" for the ARW.

rationale and its citations

Throughout the 1700s, surely the most important events in western military history were the Anglo-French wars of rivalry on the European continent and globally for empire. These are styled among most RS historians in the field as the Second Hundred Years' War, the term for Anglo-French rivalry 1689-1815 coined by British historian John Robert Seeley. David K. Allison in The American Revolution: A Global Perspective, these were fought primarily by France and Britain, but also allies on both sides from "across Europe, and even from Asia". Over the course of eight wars 1689-1815, "Americans fought in every one". The state delegates in Congress knew that any fight with Britain to achieve "an equal and separate station among the powers of the earth" as an independent nation "would necessarily involve European powers, most notably France and Spain." - In North America dating from 1607-09 and Santa Fe, Quebec, Jamestown, virtually all conflict among European settlers can be explained as Bourbon-British imperial "calculations" for "diverting the enemy's attention" from the paramount concern for the European balance of power on that continent. Paul Kennedy notes in The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, that the origins for two of those Euro great power wars 1756-63 and 1776-83, "were to be found in local struggles in [America]". "By coincidence" [ie an overlapping timeline], the Europeans later transferred them "to the other side of the Atlantic and merged into existing rivalries there." - This chart shows the relationship among Wikipedia article naming conventions for the American wars overlapping the timelines of the European wars. To date, the European military historians have not settled on a rigorous application of the established historiography related to the Second Hundred Years' War. The article has a C-class status, with editor contributions spaced out every six month or so, apart from the occasional bot. Relative to the conflicts 1775-1783 of Anglo-French rivalry in the Second Hundred Years' War, there are separate and uncoordinated articles for each of the elements: Anglo-French War (1778-1783) recently merge attempt by French Project editors to merge failed for France in the American Revolutionary War, Spain Project editors recently merged the military history article on the Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) into Spain in the American Revolutionary War, still standing are the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War and the Second Anglo-Mysore War referenced in Allison (2018) as a part of the Second Hundred Years' War historiography.

Names for American conflict and Euro rivalry

North-American conflict	Euro-great-power conflict
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|French and Indian War 1754-1763 pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by Native American allies.	align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|Seven Years' War 1756–1763 a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies in Congress against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation.	align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"| War of the American Revolution Bourbon War of 1778 1778–1783 "In 1778, the American Revolutionary War [colonials v. Britain for independence] became the global War of the American Revolution [Bourbons v. Britain for imperial gain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, among [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch]," "the last British-European war with the Bourbons as their enemies."

Chart citations & bibliography

Citations Bibliography Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-2585-0. Mackesy, Piers (1993) [1964]. The War for America 1775-1783. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803281927. Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. Boston : Little, Brown and Company.

Submitted for discussion - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Military history assessment request

At the 28-day old Military history request for this article, the update reports,

- ARW Update. (1) Maps gallery of European claims, British empire, and Native American language and tribal distribution is relocated at the renamed “Prelude to revolution” section to immediately adjacent and above “War breaks out” for better reader reference; (2) Bibliography improvements; (3) copyedits for focus, style and trim to NET 98 kB & 15531 words “readable prose size”.

- ARW meets all articulated critiques of the article for B-class assessment for 71 uninterrupted days (since 30 August), admitting additional improvements without any controversy or disruption.

- Good article criteria, note 6, "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Updates as they occur (that's over 800 edits in 71 days since 30 August, and over the last 30 days, 29 editors and four bots with positive contributions incorporated into the article). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit request

TheVirginiaHistorian (TVH), I'm going to separate points by section so that they're easier to sift through. If you have anything in particular to bring up feel free to do so. Each point can be considered its own conversation, so please leave indented (preferably unbulleted) replies underneath them. I'll strike my comments out when a resolution has been reached for them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've placed the deliberations over the Lede into one collapse-box for immediate access. Concluded deliberations should be transferred into an Archive only after the line-edit is completed, imho. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: TheVirginiaHistorian I've got some questions about the "War breaks out" section. Anyone else is also welcome to add input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: TheVirginiaHistorian (and others) for the "Strategy and commanders" section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ping

To recently active editors (TheVirginiaHistorian—Robinvp11—Gwillhickers): There seems to be some major article restructuring going on that has removed some of the text I've copyedited. It appears there's still some contention over article content, so I will be suspending my copyedit until issues among primary editors have been resolved. This is not a jab at anyone, but rather there being very little point to copyediting when text hasn't been agreed upon and may be potentially removed wholesale. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply can be found at the bottom of the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for your good work to date.

- I would implore you to have a copy edit look at three remaining sections #Revolution as civil war, #Aftermath, and #Commemorations of the Revolutionary War, as all have remained stable to date.

- I know your "ground rules" were to apply to the entire article, so I understand that your normal work flow has been interrupted. But the 'bones of contention' seem to be confined to only two sections #Strategy and commanders, and #World war and diplomacy.

- Can you overlook them, and just skip over the two sections at issue? In any case, thanks for your help and good wishes. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to stop - I obviously misunderstood the template. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lede

completed Lede resolved & editor comments

Panel discussion Lede panel discussion completed FYI  – TheVirginiaHistorian left a sample of their replies to some of my invisible comments on my talk page. Their comments can be viewed in their entirety partway through User talk:Tenryuu#Re: American Revolutionary War. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) [...] was initiated by the thirteen American colonies in congress against Great Britain over their objection to the Parliament's taxation policies [...] Emphasis added. TVH has mentioned on my talk page that they support capitalising the word and linking it to Continental Congress. Before I do, I want to confirm that "congress" here does not have the more general definition of either "a coming together of two or more people; a meeting" (archaic) or "a formal gathering or assembly; a conference held to discuss or decide on a specific question" (definitions 1 and 2 from Wiktionary), and that it refers to the official name of the legislative body. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - "Congress". The legislative body of colonial independence from "all political connection with Great Britain" was indeed the Continental Congress. The lower-elected chambers in the colonial Royal assemblies only declared their legislative independence from Parliament in local matters to establish themselves as states within the British Empire "as though they were in England" per their Stuart charters. —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) - They were meant to rule directly in the name of the Crown as did the British East India Company --- with a flag of thirteen alternating horizontal red and white stripes, and a canton of the Great Union Flag ( as flown over the restored colonial Capitol in Williamsburg VA) --- leaving legislation for the Empire to Parliament, but only admitting those measures that applied to England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Americas equally. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers said: I would capitalize congress as it refers to the Continental Congress in the phrase in question. i.e. was initiated by the thirteen American colonies in congress... I would also add the phrase, delegates from, so the statement would read thusly: was initiated by delegates from the thirteen American colonies in Congress, making it clear that this was indeed an assembly of representatives. (Copied by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)) Multireply:  Done. Using Gwillhickers' wording. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) With the capture of French Canada in the French and Indian War and confirmation of British victory through the Treaty of Paris in 1763 [...] Already edited. Reading further down I see that another Treaty of Paris was signed a few decades later, so the years in the sentences should give enough context for the targeted links. Does it look fine as it is, or would stretching the link to include "in 1763" look better (i.e., Treaty of Paris in 1763 → Treaty of Paris in 1763)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - I would just use parens: Treaty of Paris (1763). Fortuitously, this is actually the article title, so you can bracket it up, just like that. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC) - "Treaty of Paris (1763)", or "the 1763 1763 Treaty". - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers said: Yes, we should differentiate between the two Treaties of Paris, i.e. Treaty of Paris (1763) and Treaty of Paris (1783), with more than just a piped-link to either, but with the year date indicated in the actual text for ease of readability. (Copied by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)) Multireply:  Done. Using link text with disambiguator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) The French subsequently made two treaties with Congress, the first for trade, and the second to "defensively" protect that trade in the 1778 Treaty of Alliance. I went ahead and changed the first comma into a colon. First treaty: Another WP:EASTEREGG. I think changing it to [...] the Treaty of Amity and Commerce that established direct trade should fix things. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Second treaty: Are the quotes around "defensively" for directly quoting or scare quotes? "Defensively protect" sounds redundant, but the explanatory footnote (efn) appears to explain this? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - I'll defer to your judgment. Yes, drop the "defensively", it can be mistaken as scare quotes, the the treaty provisions are amply explained in the Note. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Referring to both by name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) In the war for independence from Britain, the American cause was further helped the next year when Britain gained another enemy: Spain. This could possibly be rearranged (with some efn integration into the prose) to The following year, America's war for independence from Britain was assisted when Spain honored its Pacte de Famille with France. Bourbon could be mentioned in there somewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Moved reference to the end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) [...] forced the British to retreat to Yorktown where it was besieged by a joint Franco-American force. I would use a term other than "Franco-American", as that generally refers to Americans of French descent. It's subtly different, but French–American (with an en dash) would work better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers said: I agree that using the term, Franco-American force, is not the best way to describe this allied effort. The statement in question should read "...it was besieged by an allied French and American force. (copied by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)) Multireply:  Done. Gwillhickers' proposed wording removes the ambiguity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) A strategically decisive French naval victory brought the October 1781 surrender of the second British field army in the Revolutionary War. WP:EASTEREGG. Sentence should be rephrased to explicitly mention the Battle of the Chesapeake. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers said: I agree that the Battle of the Chesapeake should not be hidden in a piped link and should be spelled out in the narrative. In the not so distant past I've removed several name-famous battles in this manner, so as to allow a page search for any reader searching for a given event's coverage in this article. (copied by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)) Multireply:  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC) The Tory government fell and Lord North was replaced by Whig Lord Rockingham. I'm assuming Charles Watson-Wentworth is more commonly known as Lord Rockingham? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - Yes, thank you. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers said: Yes the Lord Rockingham, referred to in the lede is Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, preceded by the proper noun, Whig. The common term, Lord Rockingham is already linked. (copied by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)) Multireply:  Done. Left as is due to WP:COMMONNAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) When their Olive Branch Petition to the King and Parliament was rebuffed, the Patriots invaded British Quebec but were repelled. Already edited. TVH suggested using "repulsed" in a larger, regional context, so that has been changed back. "Their" could either be replaced with "its" to describe Congress or more directly with "Congress'". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - Style dictates "Patriots" because "Congress" appears so close in the very next sentence. TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Split the sentence in two and linked "Patriots" to Patriot (American Revolution). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) However the new British commander-in-chief General Sir William Howe launched a counter-offensive and captured New York City.  Done. Already edited. - TVH suggested that commas be added for separating assignment and rank, so I added them in. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Washington retaliated with harassing attacks at Trenton and Princeton. TVH answered this on my talk page. This appears to have its own article at Harassing fire. Would it be accurate to link to that and change "attacks" to "fire"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - Ordinarily yes, but the day had been rehearsed, as guerrilla attacks often are. The militia had practiced 'leap-frogging' squads from pre-planned positions all along the entire route of march back to Boston. The militia harassing fires were sustained periodically throughout the entire retreat. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I'll change text and link to "harassing fire". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775. The British garrison at Boston was ordered to destroy colonial Assembly powder stores and was harassed by Massachusetts militia at Lexington and Concord. Already edited and TVH made an evaluation on my talk page. I'm wondering if this could be improved a bit more: The sentences could be joined by a colon as the second explains the first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - I'll defer to you. I'm not sure about proper usage of colons apart from setting off a list of items, or steps in a procedure. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I'm also thinking of changing [...] Assembly powder stores and was harassed [...] to [...] Assembly powder stores, but was harassed [...] (emphasis added), assuming that the garrison never accomplished its task. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - aaaaah, the British garrison did succeed in destroying the weapons they were ordered to destroy (but failed to capture Sam Adams, et alia). - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Idea: This is interesting. Aside from failing to capture Sam Adams and others, this sentence can be rewritten. Was the garrison harassed before or after it destroyed the Americans' weapons? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) In a formal military sense, the "militia harassment" began at the "battle" of Lexington. It was tactically a "skirmish line" of musketry thrown together just beyond a narrow bridge into the town. They let fly a volley or two to halt and delay the advancing British column so the Sons of Liberty leaders could escape. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Rephrased the sentence to say that the British technically managed to complete their assignment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured the city, but the British were defeated at Saratoga in October 1777. - TVH opined about this on my talk page. While not at MOS:SEAOFBLUE levels, unlinking "Saratoga" is an option. My original concern is that I expected to be taken to Saratoga County, New York instead of Battles of Saratoga when I clicked on the link. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - If we can keep the link to the Battles of Saratoga at "Saratoga, that is my preference. Thanks. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion: In that case, how about this: Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured the city, but the British were defeated at the Battles of Saratoga in October 1777. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) - good. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) At Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778, Washington built a professional army with the important assistance of soldier-of-fortune General von Steuben. TVH suggested making changes on my talk page. "Important": Doesn't seem like this will need to be discussed if the sentence is going to be overhauled, but I don't think "important" is necessary here, as that tends to lead to the question "why was it important?" It could be used further down in the article when it is shown why his assistance was important to building Washington's professional army. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)  Moot. "Important" is gone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Von Steuben: I've gone ahead and used von Steuben's full name as its first mention. I also used "emigrant" instead of émigré as it's English (unless there's a special meaning behind émigré?) I don't think there's anything wrong with using "assistance" to describe von Steuben's contribution; "implement" might be a better fit if his contribution is specified. As this is the lede, I'm not sure switching to "implement" is necessary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - Full name is good. I need a word, not "assistance", that signifies that von Steuben was "the man". He knows what to do and how to do it. Washington buys his act, then von Steuben does the deed over the course of that winter and thereafter, and he writes the infantry training manual adopted for use in the US Army over the next thirty years. "Think, think, think, said Pooh bear." - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion: How about omitting Washington completely from the sentence and expand on Steuben? Consider At Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778, Prussian emigrant General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben trained the Continental Army with a system of progressive training. I took that last bit from the article on him. If the manual is more important we can swap that in or try and include that as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) good. thank you. The 'train' is more important than the 'manual'. It was said that the good general personally took it upon himself to scream oaths in four languages at any mis-step of a drilling soldier in the process of mastering his drill manual. (see also any Marine 'boot' camp movie scene - the Marine Corps birthday is Nov 10, 1775 at Tun Tavern. In the age of sail, 'tender feet' could not scale the rigging to the tops without wearing boots, or the rough tar-soaked roping would bloody the soles of their feet; hence "boots" are "beginners". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Using the proposed sentence as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Link for "professional army": "Professional army" is currently linked to Continental Army#Operations. I suggest changing the text to "Continental Army" and removing the anchor to the section for anyone who wants to learn more about the Continental Army in general (i.e., [...] Washington built the Continental Army with the assistance of Prussian emigrant General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben). - agree. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) The war between Britain and the Bourbon alliance continued for another two years. First explicit mention of "Bourbon", so it should probably be linked to House of Bourbon? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - better. But use "Bourbon" linked to "Pacte de Famille#The third Pacte de Famille, 1761" to get the two principal contemporaries of George III receiving American diplomats from the Continental Congress. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion: What about House of Bourbon#Ferdinand VI and Charles III? Pacte de Famille appears to only mention America in an efn; the House of Bourbon anchor mentions Charles assisting the rebels (Americans) and fighting against Britain in the prose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) - good for me. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Linking to that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) The Preliminary Peace was signed in November [...] Any article about "Preliminary Peace" on Wikipedia? I can't seem to find one off the top of suggested matches. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - I don't think so, yet. It is critically important from this side of the Pond, but for the Euros, not so much. - The bigger, bloodier, longer, more expensive and more complex diplomatically complex conflict variously called the "Bourbon War" and "War of 1778" by contemporary Euro participants, and set within the Second Hundred Years' War of British historiography, is of forefront interest to most world historians, and rightfully so. - As I understand it, before university specialization, most Euros spend half a day on the America Revolution as a prelude to three weeks spent on the French Revolution; and that makes sense from their perspective. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) - TIMELINE CAUTION. The Library of Congress, “A Century of Lawmaking”, Treaty of Paris refers to “the preliminary articles of peace” signed on November 30, 1782. --- without capitalization. My reference for the capitalization in the term “Preliminary Peace” was in a British diplomatic history, so we can await future capitalization when I find it later for an ARW Talk discussion. The "conclusive" Anglo-American Treaty of Paris is signed in September 1783. —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers said: Yes, the term in the lede, "The Preliminary Peace was signed in November...", more than suggests that this was some sort of official title. It should instead read 'A preliminary peace was signed in November...   Also, the signing refers to the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which was actually signed in September, not November as the lede currently states. (copied by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)) Multireply to Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian: Investigation. I did a quick Google search and found this webpage. It appears that the preliminary articles belong to the second 1783 Treaty of Paris, but only the preliminary articles were signed in November 1782, while the entire document was signed September 1783. Does that seem to be correct? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Tenryuu — Yes, according to Morris, 1965, p. 207, the preliminary articles, drafted by John Jay, were signed by Richard Oswald for Great Britain, and by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Henry Laurens for the U.S., on November 30, 1782. (See also: Renehan, 2007, p. 87) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) - (1) Both parties acted on the 'preliminary articles'. Congress proclaimed an end to hostilities unanimously, and published it in newspapers and broadsides. It called up no more replacement regiments for those whose enlistment expired. To fund expenses and pay off debts, US Navy ships were sold or given away. Regiments in the field were furloughed home without pay (their officers at half-pay versus paying them their back pay as a lump sum). George III the week after, on December 4, 1782, declared for American independence in his Speech from the Throne opening of Parliament at a public joint session of Lords and Commons. - (2) The "preliminary" articles of peace are adopted wholesale into the "conclusive" Anglo-American treaty as agreed upon without conferring with the Bourbons by either party. All the unanimously-adopted Congressional war aims were met: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi River and its free navigation, fishing and curing rights at Newfoundland. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Then the current lede statement is good as currently reads. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Multireply:  Done. I'm calling them as the "preliminary articles of peace" as that's how American sources appear to refer to them as. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) When the Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts—punitive laws for defying Great Britain—upon Massachusetts, twelve colonies attended the First Continental Congress to boycott British goods. Already edited. TVH made two points on my talk page about this sentence: Definition for Intolerable Acts can be seen by hovering over the linked text: The general page preview feature definitely makes having both unnecessary. I generally prefer using the proper name of an event/act/entity on a page to highlight its importance instead of just describing it, and Wikipedia prefers links to be as transparent as possible and printer-friendly. How about just linking "Intolerable Acts"? The page preview shows its lede mentioning that they are "punitive laws". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Looks like you may have taken care of this in the interim, but mobile devices don't show hover text; and this is discouraged by MOS:NOTOOLTIPS. Ditto for "First treaty" below; etc. Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC) - For increasing mobile access, in this case and similar, add a brief definition in a Note. "Intolerable Acts{{ efn | Intolerable acts were punitive laws for defying Great Britain }}. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Multireply:  Tentatively done. Replaced it with an efn. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) - confirm yes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion to amend latter half of sentence:  Done. More specific wording suggested by TVH. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - Thanks. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) [...] that would weaken the French position in the Americas. How would unpiping the first link look? I'm thinking [...] that would weaken the French colonial empire's position in the Americas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - Unpiping good. Link to "Americas" should be to "Americas" at European colonization of the Americas for historical context, so as to avoid the scholarly "Anachronism" and political "presentism" that plagues the field of History. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Partly done. I've unpiped French colonial empire and consider changing the link for Americas another time. It appears that "Americas" is used in this article to differentiate the geographical landmass from "America" the nation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) - I'm not sure, need a check with Gwillhickers and Mathglot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, we use the termAmerica to refer to the (soon to be) country, and Americas to refer to the continents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC) If there's any uncertainty at all about what the source means by 'Americas', then I would be as conservative as MOS:LINKQUOTE is for quotations, and simply not link it, and let the reader make their own determination about meaning, rather that tilt towards some Wikipedia editor's take (or 3 WP editors take) on it. Just my 2¢. And can we stick with one level of extra indent for replies, per WP:THREAD? Thx. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I'm going to leave the link to the Americas as is, as contextually I think it would make sense. If anyone wants to change it to (unlinked) "continent" that works too. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) On September 3, 1783, another Treaty of Paris was signed between Great Britain and the United States. Already edited, but "another" should differentiate this Treaty of Paris from the earlier one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC) - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a = TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC) - on second thought, adding "another" here in the Introduction referring back to the 1763 Treaty of Paris, that ended the Seven Years' War among imperial great powers, is sort of off-topic, a side-bar of diplomatic history that does not bear directly on the military history of the American Revolutionary War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. @TheVirginiaHistorian: Good catch: America wasn't involved in that signing, so "another" would be inappropriate. Switched to "a" (I don't see a need for the disambiguator here as the year is literally a few words before it). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Editor comments Lede editor comments completed Tenryuu — Thanks for your time and effort in sorting through this rather long and involved article. Thus far most of your suggestions here look okay. I'll comment on a few items. I would capitalize congress as it refers to the Continental Congress in the phrase in question. i.e. was initiated by the thirteen American colonies in congress... I would also add the phrase, delegates from, so the statement would read thusly: was initiated by delegates from the thirteen American colonies in Congress, making it clear that this was indeed an assembly of representatives. Yes, we should differentiate between the two Treaties of Paris, i.e. Treaty of Paris (1763) and Treaty of Paris (1783), with more than just a piped-link to either, but with the year date indicated in the actual text for ease of readability. Yes, the term in the lede, "The Preliminary Peace was signed in November...", more than suggests that this was some sort of official title. It should instead read 'A preliminary peace was signed in November...   Also, the signing refers to the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which was actually signed in September, not November as the lede currently states. Yes the Lord Rockingham, referred to in the lede is Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, preceded by the proper noun, Whig. The common term, Lord Rockingham is already linked. I agree that the Battle of the Chesapeake should not be hidden in a piped link and should be spelled out in the narrative. In the not so distant past I've removed several name-famous battles in this manner, so as to allow a page search for any reader searching for a given event's coverage in this article. I agree that using the term, Franco-American force, is not the best way to describe this allied effort. The statement in question should read "...it was besieged by an allied French and American force. More comments later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the comments so far Gwillhickers; I'll address them at a later time. For the sake of keeping what is going to be an extremely long discussion organised, easy to navigate, and as short as possible, please reply directly after each point (with a signature as always) so the three of us don't need to scroll back and forth to check and reply when discussing a particular point. I know it's unorthodox and departs from WP:TPO, but I anticipated this "non-general" use by ending my comments with their own time stamps. Think of my giant comment as multiple tinier comments that can be individually responded to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Actually, I've frequently responded in this manner before, but recently a certain editor took me to task, citing guidelines, etc, for having "clobbered" his post in this manner. Yes, with your permission I'll be happy to respond in such a fashion. Also, might I suggest, that if an edit only involves variations in grammar, simple title and date fixes, etc, they need not always be mentioned on the Talk page here. An edit summary should suffice. Perhaps from this point on, for the sake of simplicity, we might want to reserve our talk to potentially controversial edits, major additions/deletions and the like. All other edits can be adjusted if need be. Once again, many thanks for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC) What you were taken to task for, was a clear TPO violation which garbled the Talk page. Responding in the manner Tenryuu suggests, is perfectly fine: note that Tenryuu has signed every bullet, thus when you respond to individual points there is no possibility for confusion, as your comments will have your sig, and the originals and other responses, will have theirs, and threading remains clear. See WP:TALKREPLY. Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Blur... Your name wasn't even mentioned, but now, everyone around here knows. Once again, TPO is a guideline, not a rigid policy. Guidelines allows for exceptions as was already explained for you. Sorry. Please try to get over it, instead of lurking in the shadows more obsessed with long past personal and peevish issues, rather than article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Both of you (Mathglot—Gwillhickers), I acknowledge that there is bad blood between you two, but please keep the arguing to your talk pages. @Gwillhickers: Yes you have my permission. May I copy your bulleted responses to the appropriate points? [...] if an edit only involves variations in grammar, simple title and date fixes, etc [...] Sure; I'll use my better judgment. I'll check this periodically to see if anyone has questions of their own. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Ooops. No offense in any direction intended. Before I read down to here in the 'Editing Talk' screen, I just finished a couple early morning hours lacing comments inside the bullets above to respond to Tenryuu as best I understood (her)(him)><(him)(her). The copyeditor is an invited guest here, and it's their rodeo, if I get a vote, because the visit did not originate with them. - Also, I mini-signed each response with "TVH 11 November-a" to avoid filling the page with a wall of signatures, and at the last one, showed TVH 11 November-a = TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC) @Tenryuu, Mathglot, and Gwillhickers:, for the top section of 100% resolved elements of the Lede copyedit, may I put them in a collapsed box? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm fine with that. I haven't done it in my previous copyedit+ lookovers as they were one-to-one correspondences, but that would help organise things. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC) No worries on my end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC) @TheVirginiaHistorian:, late to the party, but this looks fine. Thanks for asking. Hope you're all okay with the collapse bar color change; I find when there are several of them on a page, having different shades helps ensure you are in the right place. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks. And, I like this color better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Pending Lede pending completed empty

Prelude to revolution

Resolved

completed Prelude line-edits

The serial comma. Some lists (e.g., "A, B and C") don't use it and some do. I personally prefer having it as it gives a brief pause in the text when reading, but I'll leave the decision to the others so long as its use (or lack thereof) is consistent. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) agree to the serial comma throughout. - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Waiting for additional editor input... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I'll keep an eye out to see if any lists like those need the comma. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) and the British formally abandoned the Stuart King colonial charters [...] I'm going to add an apostrophe to "charters", but how many charters were there? Just one? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Not just Virginia and Massachusetts had proprietary charters flipped to Royal charters by the Stuarts, others were initially Stuart Royal charters. By 1775, was it Pennsylvania and Delaware surviving as the last proprietorships? - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Limiting colonial westward expansion was to be paid for by the Americans themselves by the 1764 Sugar Act and the 1765 Stamp Act. This sentence is a little confusing for me with the word "limiting" at the beginning. In my head it makes more sense for Great Britain to stop financing the colonies if the latter decided to expand westwards; as it reads right now it sounds like Great Britain would still support the colonies if they continued to expand westward. I'm not sure what costs would be incurred if expansion was limited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Suggested rewrite for the opening two-sentences: "Enforcement of the Proclamation limiting colonial westward expansion was to be financed by the Americans themselves through revenues collected from the 1764 Sugar Act and the 1765 Stamp Act. The economic effect of these measures became crippling for New England." - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Tweaked the last sentence a bit so that it could merge with the previous one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Partly designed to undercut illegal imports, it was also recognized as another attempt to assert their right to tax the colonies, so it did nothing to quiet opposition. Is "it" referring to the Tea Act? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, the Tea Act "was also recognized interpreted as another attempt to assert Parliament's right to directly tax the colonies..." - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Incorporated proposed rewording into my own. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) These increasing tensions led to a mutual scramble for ordnance between royal governors and the elected assemblies. WP:EASTEREGG concerns. Taking a quick glance at the article, it seems like the Powder Alarm is the widespread reaction by many colonies to gunpowder confiscation? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, perhaps edit to "These increasing tensions led to a mutual scramble for ordnance between royal governors and elected assemblies." - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Explicitly mentioned the Powder Alarm and used the preexisting text as a definition. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) The tentative Whig majority there [...] Reminder for self: Delink this if this is linked earlier. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Linked earlier by Lord Rockingham. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) The initial hostilities in Boston caused a pause in British activity [...] I don't think "initial hostilities" needs to be linked to Boston campaign, as it seems to still be referring to the Battles at Lexington and Concord. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) agreed. I liked finding the Boston campaign because it seemed more strategic wrapping in the Siege of Boston and the creation of the Continental Army. Perhaps there's a place for it in the next section. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Unlinked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) At the 1763 Peace of Paris ending it [...] The link redirects to Treaty of Paris (1763). I'm thinking of renaming it so that the redirect is unnecessary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) agreed. I like "At the treaty ending it, France [...]" —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - Not sure how this may apply: At two other sites, an experienced editor has removed two internal article links objecting to a "2-step link". With that in mind, once "Seven Years' War" is linked, the treaty ending it is discussed there, so is any further link to Treaty of Paris (1763) warranted in this section? - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC) I'm not seeing anything over at MOS:LINK that mentions "two-step linking". The way I see it, readers may be interested in the war that preceded the American Revolutionary War, so that could be linked. The Treaty of Paris should be linked because its ratification contributed to the American Revolution with domain changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) - Got it. - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC) I'm also thinking of rewording this a little bit: something along the lines of The war ended with the signing [or "ratification", if it's applicable here] of the 1763 Treaty of Paris; as a result, France [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Alternate: "That war ended with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. It caused France to abandon North America, Spain expanded [...]" --- 'that' because it is not 'this' war, nor was it 'this' Peace of Paris (1783). —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Got around using a pronoun by moving the Treaty of Paris to the previous sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The coming American Revolutionary War was set amidst this already unsettled world. This sentence is too dramatic for an encyclopedia and the section heading already implies that this section talks about the factors that led to the war. I suggest removing it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Suggested rewrite: "When the Europeans changed their maps, they caused major disruptions throughout North America. These included military alliances, trade networks, and economic stability, all before the onset of the American Revolutionary War." —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - "Europeans' maps" meaning those of the British, French and Spanish empires in North America, all redrawn in 1763. "Military alliances" and "trade networks" include those made Euro-to-Euro, Euro-to-Indian, and Indian-to-Indian, all disrupted in 1763 at "The Scratch of a Pen" (Calloway 2007). - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I've gone and made the change. I didn't add "American Revolutionary War", as it is still self-evident from the heading that we are talking about events before the war which are implied to have led to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) With Britain's enlarged North American empire, the earlier Navigation Acts were expanded from mercantile regulation [...] I went ahead and linked to Navigation Acts. I see they "expanded from mercantile regulation", but is there any detail as to what other aspects were included in the Acts from the source? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) New Royal Governor-appointed posts were created to be paid for by colonial assemblies. These are the DOI "hordes" sent to administer the new taxes. Additional Royal Navy squadrons were stationed on patrol in New England waters. - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Would it be correct to say that the Royal Navy was bolstered to enforce tax collection? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Bolster" defenses on land, for sure. Perhaps better, "and the Royal Navy assigned warships to tax smugglers as they approached Boston Harbor." - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Tweaked the proposed rewrite before implementing it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) [...] which required British garrisons to be established in the formerly French forts ceded by the Indians. Already edited. There is some alliteration that could be worded better. There seem to be two groups who owned the forts previously: the French and the Indians. Were the Indians using the forts with permission from the French? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Rats. sorry for the misdirection. The French obtained treaties from Indians ceding territory for the purpose of forts to "His Most Christian Majesty", mostly along tribal borderlands. They were ceded for the French to conduct trade with multiple tribes nearby, even though some adjacent tribes were mutually hostile. War parties would by-pass the French treaty-forts on raids to count coup, capture wives, and acquire slaves on a small scale, some of whom became adopted and intermarried into their host tribe. - These French-Indian treaties later become diplomatically fraught across Euro-Indian cultures, because the authority of Sachem peace-chiefs is different-from and other-than the authority of Werowance war-chiefs. Related multi-cultural miscommunication: Gift-giving in diplomacy had two opposite and inverse meanings. To Euros, the exchange obligated the receiver as a subordinate vassal who accepted the gift, --- but the self-same practice --- to Indians, the exchange obligated the giver as a subordinate to the protector who accepted the gift. - Also renegade young warriors sometimes accepted arms from the French or British to engage in warfare and take scalps from Euro settlements without sanction from either the Sachems or Werowances of their tribe. Renegades without tribal authority were known to leave war-regalia of their traditional tribal enemies at the site of Euro settlement raids to initiate Euro punitive expeditions against their tribal enemies, and at the same time to escape censure at their home fires. All the while they could collect Euro bounties for scalps, and keep muskets, ball and powder for their followers in quantities that their elders did not yet possess. In response to reinforce traditional chiefs, the Euros provided werowance military allies with both supplies of munitions and a permanent village-resident armorer to maintain the muskets; he often took a village wife. - Documentation comes from journals of multi-racial linguists who negotiated or helped negotiate between colonial authorities and tribal elders with traditional authority, trying to find a path to mutual cultural justice for both the perpetrators and the victims. --- for young firebrand Euro county militia captains making war on Indians without their elders' sanction, see Nathaniel Bacon (oops, wrong tribe). - The French transferred treaty-forts to the British by the 1763 Treaty of Paris. - The British transferred treaty-forts to the Americans by the 1783 Treaty of Paris - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Ah okay, so the Indians gave the land to the French who built forts that were later handed to the British by the 1763 Treaty of Paris? I'm just wondering if it is necessary to mention the Indians here, as what appears to be more important are the forts. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Suggested: "[...] peace for interior trade needed policing against illicit colonial settlement, and that required British garrisons to occupy the earlier French trading forts. Note: By the 1700s, the French had negotiated land cessions from Indian tribes for trading-post forts in boundary lands removed from their principle villages and adjacent tribal areas. These were ceded to the British in the Treaty of Paris (1763), and included outposts just west of the 1763 Royal Proclamation Line. At the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, the same forts were ceded by the British to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1783).- —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Used TVH's suggested rewrite. Will visit the efn another time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The next year, Whig Lord Rockingham was appointed to his first Prime Ministership (1765–1766), and repealed the Stamp Act when he paired it with the Declaratory Act. Two things: Linking "Whig": "Whig" looks like something that interested readers could read more about. To get around MOS:SEAOFBLUE, I'm thinking of reorganising the first part of the sentence around, something like The next year, Lord Rockingham from the Whigs was appointed [...] I also wonder if it would be better for the link to Rockingham's article was unanchored, as interested readers may be interested in his life outside of his being prime minister. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Alternate phrasing: "Lord Rockingham who was leader of the Whigs in the House of Lords was appointed ..." —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Made his title as Whig leader a parenthetical thought. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) - I think it may be that readers focused on the American history would want to zero in first on the information in the anchored section, and then once landed on the Lord Rockingham page, the general reader will scroll around the article to pick up additional British context and history. —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Leaving it as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Pairing and repealing: How does an act get repealed when it is paired with another one? Perhaps "replaced" makes more sense? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) It's more complicated that a one-step "replaced". To get the required majority in both Lords and Commons to repeal the Stamp Act, Lord Rockingham paired two bills to combine most Whig votes and some Tory votes, as the Whig caucuses alone could pass repeal of the Stamp Act in both Houses. The pro-Whig bill (a) repealing the Stamp Act, was paired with the pro-Tory bill (b) declaring Parliament had supreme jurisdiction for all things empire. The two passed, giving Lord Rockingham a win in the short run. - While the narrowly drawn language in the Declaratory bill basically mirrored what the First Continental Congress had already conceded in their Olive Branch Petition, the Tories assumed, and the Patriots feared, that Parliament might yet pass "empire taxes" that did not apply everywhere equally throughout the empire. There might be America-only taxes in the future that would exempt England in the levy, and so those bills would be easier to pass without American consent. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Okay, so if I understand this correctly, Rockingham intentionally merged the two together to ensure his party's decision would be the majority? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Correct. Or, kindler, gentler, and in the passive diplomatic voice: so the policy could gain a majority. - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I think the addition makes sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) He pursued tougher policies, including a threat to charge colonists with treason, although there was no support for this in Parliament. Emphasis added. Is "this" referring to his "tougher policies" or more specifically his threat of charging colonists with treason? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) More specifically to Lord North's threat of charging colonists with treason. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion: How about this rewrite: Although Parliament supported North's proposed tougher policies, it did not entertain his threat to charge the colonists with treason? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Better. —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The Radical Whig Patriots gained widespread [...] Another MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. Would Radical Whig members of the Patriots [...] still make sense? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) aaaaah, perhaps "The radical-whig Patriots" [Brit: 'radical-whiggish Patriots] -? The Patriots were not divided into factions as were the British Whig moderates and radicals. They all were followers of Montesquieu and Locke, politically connected in their newspapers to the radical Whig John Wilkes sympathizers in Commons, even after Wilkes, "the hero of English liberty", was expelled. —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC) suggest, "The Patriots gained widespread support both in America and also among Parliament's Whig Opposition." —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion: I think "Radical Whig" can be kept: what about Patriots who were also Radical Whigs gained widespread support [...]? Your suggestion would work if the Patriots as a whole gained widespread support. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Further amendment: "Although they were intended to specifically punish Massachusetts, they the acts were widely viewed as a threat to English liberty for in all the colonies, and the rising crisis gained local support for the Patriots. They were seen as Radical Whigs in London, and advocates increased among the Whig Opposition in Parliament and in the London press." - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Made a brief meta-amendment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in another attempt to avert war. What was their first attempt of averting war again? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) No, there are earlier petitions, such as the successful petition to repeal the Stamp Act. - As a matter of British North American colonial history, many previous conflicts in several colonies across decades had come to a successful resolution from the colonial perspective, simply on the motion of a Royal colonial assembly (Royal Governor, Royal Council and elected Burgesses) petitioning the King. That was the history before the time of George III, including that of George II. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion: If what you mentioned isn't going to be added into the article, I think switching another to an should be enough. I also already changed avert to prevent. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Good, Tenryuu. What I mentioned is background better suited to the American Revolution, perhaps. - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

War breaks out

Resolved

Resolved points

[...] General Washington checked British operations out of New York at the 1778 Battle of Monmouth. To confirm, Washington was outside of New York City and the British were inside? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Correct. —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Tweaked wording for clarification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Initially the British were successful, and Americans lost an army in their greatest defeat at Charleston in 1780. Emphasis added. This should definitely be cited as "greatest" is incredibly subjective. Also, does "greatest" apply to the entire war or just Charleston? Alternatively, using a non-superlative adjective could also work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) YES, thank you. "Greatest" is the characterization made at the source, Mays 2019, p.3. It is not so much "subjective" as "bean-counting". That is as accounted for by troops surrendered, or muskets captured, or heavy guns secured, or any other combination of the three. This was it, for the American cause, for the entire duration of the war. - But I see your point. For the general reader, the term is NOT informative in an encyclopedic narrative, it is merely distracting. "Unsurpassed" likewise seems con-man wp:puffery. "Devastating" is overwrought and also factually incorrect, as another, larger Patriot army was to be raised in the Carolina, within the next few months, though without the numbers of veteran Continentals. But with battle-hardened militia and a core of regulars amounting to a Continental infantry regiment and cavalry legion, that proved sufficient for Patriot victory in the South. Let's use [...] and the American defeat at Charleston lost them an entire army, causing a severe set back for Patriots in the region.. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Taking TVH's proposed wording with some tweaks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) In November 1776, a Massachusetts-sponsored uprising in Nova Scotia was disbursed. Emphasis added. Just double-checking that the uprising was dispersed and not disbursed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) LOL, YES, thank you. The old aviation supply officer trips up again. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Switched to the right word. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) A troop of British regulars set out [...] Could "regulars" be further disambiguated to Regular Army (UK), which itself is a redirect to the British Army, or is it intended to just be a link to define what a "regular army" is? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Let's replace that one with the chronological link to British Army during the American Revolutionary War. Thanks. Good catch! - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Relinked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Burgoyne dug in [...] What does "dug in" mean here? "Continued to pursue"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) No, not pursue in this case. Burgoyne suffers severe losses, his Indian allies leave him, and he is now faced with a large enemy force. The infantry in the defense gains an advantage behind some kind of protection. The infantry at this time dug trenches into the ground, mounding the earth as a protective wall in front, adding felled trees, branches outward if there were time. - Alternate: Burgoyne set up defensive earthen-works. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Used "dug trenches" and provided a reason. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) French foreign minister Charles Gravier, the Comte de Vergennes, was strongly anti-British and had long sought a pretext for going to war with Britain since their conquest of Canada in 1763. The prose states that Britain conquered Canada in 1763, but the wikilink says they did it in 1760. Which is correct? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) The conflict called the French and Indian War in North America was over in 1760, but the end of all great power conflict worldwide for the Seven Years' War is formally ended at the signed Treaty of Paris (1763). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I'll leave it as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Britain could not find a powerful ally among the Great Powers to engage France on the European continent [...] This is the first time that "Great Powers" is mentioned in the article. If there isn't an appropriate wikilink for it, I suggest defining who the Great Powers are. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) We can do that in a Note. The European "Great Powers" of the late 1700s were generally divided east and west. The Eastern Great Powers were Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The Western Great Powers were France and Spain, each separately and together in their Pacte de Famille, Britain, and sometimes the declining Dutch Republic. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Created an efn. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The war then stalemated. It's a pretty isolated sentence by itself. Is it being explained by the following sentence? When did it get out of being a stalemate? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Agree. Alternate: [...], which disappointed the Americans. [paragraph] For the rest of the year, combat was mostly large skirmishes such as those at [...]. And paragraph at During the winter of 1779-1780. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Line breaks made and sentence removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Later in the year, a second campaign was undertaken to seize the Illinois Country from the British. Virginia militia, Canadien settlers [...] Is the use of "Canadien" intentional to describe French Canadians? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, happily supplied by a Canadian editor. He replaced my hapless 'Francophone' term with the much better 'Canadien'. The French settlements that came under British rule were unhappy with the change of regime, especially the prohibition against public worship of the Roman Catholic faith. Clark was able to give them assurances that they could freely practice their religion, and with the support of the Catholic priests, the settlers accepted Virginia government as Illinois County, Virginia, and elected their two delegates to the General Assembly in Williamsburg. - Second thoughts, reconsideration? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. As a Canadian editor, the thought is much appreciated. I'm going to wikilink "Canadien" so that uninformed readers don't think it's a typo. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Cornwallis ended the Spring 1778 policy to parol Patriot militia who would return home not to fight Royal authority again. Parol is an actual English word, but it doesn't appear to be used as a verb. Is it supposed to be "parole"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Good eye. That may actually be a typo. "parole" it is. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Changed word. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) At the Spanish declaration of war with France in 1779 [...] Did Spain declare war against France or their allyship with them? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you for catching that. In 1779, when Spain joined France in declaring war on Britain, Governor Gálvez [...] - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Using proposed wording instead with a little reorganisation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The British dug in at Yorktown and awaited the Royal Navy. Another mention of "dug in". Does it mean the same thing as before? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, but with very much more engineering, more solid defense against shot and shell, elaborate interlocking defensive fires, multiple posts laid out with complementing fields of fire. British engineers built up an elaborate defensive position, and awaited [...] - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Generalised to "British", but otherwise using proposed wording. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Starting in 1779, the British initiated a southern strategy to begin at Savannah, gather Loyalist support, and reoccupy Patriot-controlled territory north to Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay doesn't link to itself? I suggest rewording if it's the colonies up there that are important. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) As much as possible, I've tried to link places to an historical context, either to the 'History' section relating the port in the ARW, or in this case, a better context in the article at Chesapeake Colonies. 'Chesapeake Colonies' gives a good overview sketch of the area of strategic importance to the British and American military theater maneuver, including the furthest interior raid up the James River to try to capture Jefferson. The Virginia and Maryland settlement in 1779 was only out of the Tidewater west across the Piedmont, and into the Great Valley. Pennsylvania had Indian peace treaties farther west, New York did not. At Colony of Virginia#Relations with the Natives the map is political-schematic, with only the half of the map east of the orange line applicable here. Virginia in the American Revolution has no map. The article Colonial South and the Chesapeake is unassessed, and without a map. Colonial history of the United States#Chesapeake Bay area does not show a close up topographical map focused on the region. I will keep trying to find 'the perfect fit'. - In 1779, Philadelphia was by far the largest port on the eastern seaboard, followed by New York. By 1779, Norfolk, a town built for access to the old pine forest growth for Royal Navy assess to had been burned. Nothing to see in that region but mostly abandoned tobacco plantations immediately around the port, with the more prosperous mixed-commercial farming and mining upland in the Piedmont. - A link to 'Chesapeake Bay' itself is unsatisfactory presentism. It would take the reader to a contemporary article, showing the Hampton Roads Ports importing and exporting more tonnage, not only greater than Baltimore since 1980, but now since 2000 greater than the New York Ports Authority, maintaining the lead for the US eastern seaboard now for two decades. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Question: How does Chesapeake Bay#History look? Near the end of the second paragraph in the "European exploration and settlement" section, it says [...] there was a mass migration of southern English Cavaliers and their servants to the Chesapeake Bay region between 1640 and 1675, to both of the new colonies of the Province of Virginia and the Province of Maryland. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) I'd say better than contemporary, but the modern eye will be off-put by the maps oriented to the East at the top of the page instead of the customary North. And, by 1779, ARW participants did not imagine mountains as pictured in the 1500s unknown Dismal Swamp or lofty peaks inhabiting the sandy Delmarva Peninsula. Is it okay to "stet", stay with "Chesapeake Bay"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I can't think of an alternative, so I'll leave it as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) British officials in Quebec began negotiating with Indian tribes to support them [...] "Indian tribes" links to an anchored section of Iroquois, but if it were only the Iroquois that helped the British, "Iroquois" should replace "Indian tribes". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) As I remember, there are also tributary tribes to the Iroquois involved. Sorry for the vagueness. But the Iroquois nations then in the Confederacy were certainly the principles, so Iroquois should be sufficient. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Changed it to "Iroquois" and did some rewording to clear up some ambiguity. I'm not sure if the current source provided mentions the tributary tribes, but if it does, I don't see why [...] negotiating with the Iroquois and their tributary tribes [...] couldn't be used. Leaving this here for TVH's eyes; feel free to toss it up in the collapsed resolved box when acknowledged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Beginning in August 1775, American privateers began raiding villages in Nova Scotia, first at Saint John, then Charlottetown and Yarmouth. In 1776, they raided Canso and assaulted Fort Cumberland. Already edited. I'm thinking "they" could be replaced by the specific privateers? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) After a quick Wikipedia-only search, I find these coastal operations by Massachusetts men (MA county of Maine) into territory where their families had settled after the British eviction of the French Acadians, was on merchants converted to privateers by militia recruited and sailing out of Machias. There are two substantial sections to read through at Machias, Maine#American Revolution that might provide more specifics. - The two key local privateer commanders were Patriot militia Capt. Benjamin Foster, and Capt. Ichabond Jones of Boston militia, cited to James Fenimore Cooper's History of the Navy of the United States of America, which I can read at the Haithi Trust.org link provided for a page number source, those are lacking at the Michias Wikipedia article. I'll try to circle back to nail down the pages tomorrow. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Waiting for further input... Otherwise I can just see who matches with which assault on the preexisting articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I've looked into the articles and mentioned the instigators in the prose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) In the meantime, the British entered winter quarters in the New York City area anticipating renewed campaigning the following spring. Should "winter quarters" be wikilinked? I looked up Winter quarters (military) and got redirected to Cantonment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you. Yes, that has been our practice. In this case, there is no single link in Wikipeida. Many British troops were quartered in the city where the provost marshall would commandeer rooms in private homes, and the families there would be responsible for maintaining comfortable heating and meals for the soldiers assigned to each household. Others were spread out in a defensive ring, bivouacked similarly among private residences and in temporary barracks as at Trenton NJ. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Deciding... Cantonment seems to be a good candidate (as far as its lede looks), but I'll ask on the help desk to see if my idea for linking to Wiktionary would look nice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) That sort of tickles my funny bone. At first blush, that would be fun. But, on second thought, because this article is meant to be in the American dialect, I wonder if I could ask for your forbearance in this matter, as the link to Cantonment reports, The United States military commonly uses the term "cantonment" to describe the permanent facilities at U.S. Army training bases as opposed to the field training areas. I know and use the term purely from a familiarity with the period history, not from modern American usage. Can that be a no, "stet" let-it-stand at "the British entered winter quarters"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I think the link would be okay, as it technically isn't the American military that set up winter quarters, but the British. In any case, I changed "entered" to "established"; it should flow more naturally that way. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) In December 1776, General John Burgoyne returned to London to set strategy with Lord George Germain [...] Would "setting strategy" be the same as "discussing strategy"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) In part, but "setting" includes gathering the intelligence, assessing it, discussing alternative plans, deciding on a course of action, and then effectively directing the subordinate units to comply in a way to allow the local commander to achieve the objective. - In this case the whole is badly fumbled in several directions, which I am happy to say, is brilliantly solved by the end of the Napoleonic Wars as a matter of military history, as a case study used by any number of national armed forces in how to untangle your mess. There are (a) various and repeated miscommunications up and down Army and Navy chains of command; (b) there is British Army-Navy misunderstanding, jealousy, and inter-service rivalry; (c) Germain distrusts Howe, Howe hates Burgoyne and vice versa professionally, politically, and socially, et alia. But the most famous of all is the war of published articles and pamphlets between Clinton and Cornwallis. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Question: Is it used in military parlance? What about [...] to London to plan strategies with [...] instead? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Good. "to London to plan strategies [...]" - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) [...] desertion was common, and mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line regiment and 300 of the New Jersey Line over the conditions in early 1780. It feels like a word is missing in "300 of the New Jersey Line over the conditions [...]" 300 of what? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Good. There were 300 soldiers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion How about removing "300 of the", unless there's a significance to the number I'm unaware of? The clause talks about the groups in which mutinies occurred, so it would read better as [...] mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line regiments [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Good. "mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line regiments". On re-thinking it, the mention of the 300 is sort of partisanly defensive, so as to point it was only 1/3 to 1/2 of the ranks in the New Jersey regiment, I suppose. Those interested in the details can follow the link. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Reworded. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) The British initiative under Colonel Henry Bird from Detroit was ended at the rumored approach of Colonel Clark. Bird is designated as Colonel in this sentence, but in Bird's invasion of Kentucky he is called a captain. Which one is correct? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I believe the sources are not aligned. It is my understanding that the commander of a regiment, or even a smaller expedition is titled "Colonel", in much the same way the commander of a ship is its "Captain", even if his rank-in-grade commission is as a Lieutenant Commander, etc. - Let's call him "Colonel" for our purposes here, for now, until an editor shows the requirement to end the widespread convention I see using "command" titles or "field promotion" ranks among the various wars and time periods across Wikipedia military history articles. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)  Partly done. While I changed Bird to only be mentioned as Colonel, I noticed that Clark also has the same issue (compare [...] Virginia county courthouse at Cahokia by Major Clark and [...] ended at the rumored approach of Colonel Clark). Should I give that the same treatment (→ Colonel)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Let's use "Colonel" again. At George Rogers Clark, we have Governor Henry commissioned him as a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia militia and authorized him to raise troops for the expedition. A Lieutenant Colonel is commonly addressed as "Colonel"; the Colonel, senior to the Lieutenant Colonel - is distinguished in usage with the term "full bird colonel", because their rank insignia is an eagle (the same as the Navy rank of Captain). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. If there's a distinction between the two I'll use "Lieutenant Colonel". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Strategy and commanders

Resolved

Resolved points

In London, the government at Westminster [...] Is this Parliament? I'm also considering merging this paragraph with the previous one to better contrast the two sides' pre-war situations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) I will defer to your judgement here for paragraphing ... perhaps the next paragraph at "The map on the right [...]"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Joining paragraphs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) - "The government at Westminster" is meant to refer to the British government of Empire, which certainly included the sitting Cabinet, but refers to both Tory and Whig administrations of the past, governing through an increasingly professionalized bureaucracy, glaring exceptions notwithstanding. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I added the descriptor "British" and removed the mention of Westminster, as the latter doesn't seem relevant to the government's actions and might accidentally imply the presence of governments elsewhere in London. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) The revolt for and against colonial independence between British subjects in thirteen colonies of North America can be seen as three kinds of ongoing and interrelated warfare. Minor thing, but there were always only thirteen colonies right? If so, it's just a matter of adding a "the" before "thirteen". A wikilink could also be introduced here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Agreed. Somewhere in another article there should be an extended discussion of Nova Scotia-New Brunswick as the "Fourteenth Colony", as for several decades, that territory was a part of British Massachusetts; at the British removal of the Acadians, that territory was repopulated by New Englanders, and there were two Canadian regiments raised directly by Congress, not a state, one of older French settlements east of the St. Lawrence River, one of newer Anglo settlements from coastal regions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Wikilinked and title-cased. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) By 1775, British American colonies supplied of raw materials for its ships and one-third its sailors and they purchased British-manufactured goods that maintained its industrial growth. I don't understand the first half of this sentence. Since we're talking about the colonies I am assuming that each instance of "its" should really be "their" (though it could be talking about Great Britain), but I think the "of" is obfuscating the verb of the first clause because of its location. Without changing pronouns, I think the sentence was meant to be read as: By 1775, British American colonies supplied raw materials for its ships and one-third of its sailors [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes. But maybe because its been a while since the word "British" appeared for the use of "it" here, "[...] colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors and they purchased British-manufactured [...]" - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. It makes more sense now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militia for the Revolutionary cause over eight war years [...] Does "war years" mean "years in wartime"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, thank you. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Re-written. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [...] which dangerously exposed the individual forces to defeat in detail [...] Slightly edited. What does "in detail" mean here? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) When all the defending commanders forces are "mutually supporting", to beat one part, the attacker has to beat them all. If, by maneuver or by forcing a break in the defense at a weak point, the attacker can isolate a smaller part of the defender, they can locally improve the odds of victory "in detail". --- Generally, an attack is not initiated without a 2-1 or 3-1 overall advantage. If the defender can be broken up, the local odds can be 5-1 or 7-1, and so bit by bit, even the best trained defending regiments can be "defeated in detail". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. It turns out there's an article on Defeat in detail, so I've linked to that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [...] but he was recalled to Great Britain when Burgoyne surrendered and a British army was lost to the Continental Army at Saratoga. Already edited. Just double-checking Howe was recalled to Great Britain after Burgoyne's surrender. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Made a few changes, but otherwise committing to the edit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Clinton delayed sending reinforcements because he believed the bulk of Washington's army was still outside New York City, then at the attempt, Admiral Romney's relief fleet to Yorktown failed. I'm guessing that "Romney" is supposed to be "Rodney" and that the "attempt" refers to the "relief fleet to Yorktown"? Did the relief fleet happen after reinforcements were sent? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes. Thank you. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Re-arranged, should look better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) In October the only German-language newspaper publishing in the colonies [...] Just double-checking that this newspaper was the only German newspaper in the colonies and was not published outside of them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Re-arranged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) The Hessians first arrived in August on Staten Island as reinforcements and participated in the Battle of Long Island. What year was this? If I'm going by the Battle of Long Island article I'm guessing it's 1776. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Added year. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) The map on the right shows the principal military operations on both sides over the course of the Revolution, with the British in red and the Americans in blue. The timeline along the bottom notes the course of battle victories, with most British in the first half, and most American in the second half of the war. I strongly recommend that this be moved into the accompanying image's caption. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (Okay). The thought is sort of longish to fit into a three-to-four lined caption. But I can try. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Partly done. I edited the caption. How does it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I agree to the move, I went all-in and edited the caption to four (4) lines, deleting the text in the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  Done by TVH. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) First, there was an economic war between a European state and its territory settled for its own economic strength and European balance of power. The grammar parses strangely in this sentence. "European state" clearly refers to "Great Britain" and "its territory" to "America". [T]here was an economic war between a European state and its territory makes sense by itself, but it's unclear as to what the rest of the sentence applies to. I currently read the sentence as there was an economic war that was settled for two things: the European balance of power and something's own economic strength (unclear as to what "it" is referring to). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, the "European state" was Britain. To revisit the rest of the sentence: "its [Britain's] territory which was settled for Britain's own economic strength, and for a British imperial expansion to balance that of France and Spain [in North America]. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Partly done. Used some of the language above. Would it be appropriate to use "influence" instead of "power"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) No, but only because the term-of-art in diplomacy and historiography is "balance of power" as a conceptual "thing" among the "great powers" about 1550-1950, and into discussions of 21st century NATO in Europe vis a vis Russia, and China-India balance in the Indian Ocean-Malacca Straits, China-other balance in the South China Sea...etc. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Switched "influence" to "power". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [...] and an economic struggle for international free trade to break the European mutually beneficial system of mercantilism. Changes might not need to be made, but I'm guessing the European nations mutually benefited from trading with each other without interacting with their colonies. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Rats. Mercantilism within each European empire was mutually beneficial for each empire apart from the others. American merchant fleets messed that up (and the Swedes and the Dutch too). When Americans traded among French, Spanish and Dutch Caribbean islands, they broke into both (a) national barriers, even during wartime with Britain, and (b) the mercantilist "metro-colonial" links from each mother country to its colonies. --- Americans undercut mercantile systems from both ends, they also traded to foreign metro ports in direct competition with their respective colonies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion In that case, how about: [...] and an economic struggle for international free trade that threatened the European nations' systems of mercantalism? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Better; how about, "an economic struggle for international free trade that threatened European systems of national mercantilism." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Using provided wording from TVH. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Third, there was an international war that intervened in and influenced the revolution, though America was not a primary combatant. Already edited. Just double-checking the "international war" mentioned (French and Indian War?) was something that the colonies did not directly participate in or at all. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Alternate: "Third, there was an international war that intervened in and influenced the revolution, " Straight up, the source says that the third kind of war in the American revolution was an international war that intervened in and influenced the revolution, referring to the long-war called by British historians, the Second Hundred Years' War. That's the "international war" referred to. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC) BACKGROUND. - The "French and Indian War" was between French regulars, French colonials, French-allied Indians on the one side, and British regulars, British colonials and British-allied Indians on the other. Historiographically that is treated as the "American theater" of the European great powers Seven Years' War. - There is also an "international war" within the "Second Hundred Years' war" that overlaps the timeline of the ARW, referred to in naval histories as the Bourbon naval war, Bourbon War, War of 1778, both from American scholars as early as Mahan 1890, and British scholars as late as Strett? 1998. - Editors with a land-military background to not use the same historiography, the land-lubbers lump all wars against Britain in the late 1700s into an expanded timeline period of the American Revolutionary War, but not for American independence, and not for the spread of republican government as in the historians treatment of the Napoleonic Wars. - The differences among ARW historiography, European naval historiography, and European military history is a contentious point of discussion on this Talk page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Suggestion How about we use your wording and change there was an international war that intervened [...] to the Second Hundred Years' War intervened [...]? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Because "Second Hundred Years' War" is a term of historiography, rather than a specific event of a single set of declarations-of-war, better may be: another Anglo-French conflict in the Second Hundred Years' War intervened [...] - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Removed last clause in sentence and used a modified version of TVH's proposed wording. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [...] so he was unable to assist General John Burgoyne and no surprise was achieved. What was the "surprise" supposed to be? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) By moving away from Washington's front just outside New York, Howe hoped to jump around him with the Royal Navy by sea, landing behind Washington and south of Philadelphia. The move was meant to catch Washington camped out on the other side of Philadelphia and looking north into New York City. He almost pulled it off, but the scholarly consensus of arm-chair generals have determined since that Howe "failed to pursue the attack" with sufficient vigor. But that might be like criticizing Longstreet at Gettysburg for "failing to pursue the attack", maybe ... I'm reluctant to do it, but "the preponderance of ARW sources" still do in Howe's case here ... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Question: So basically, he couldn't help Burgoyne or ambush Washington? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) No he could not, in effect he maneuvered himself into irrelevance vis a vis Burgoyne (Howe left Burgoyne "hanging", Howe did not "have Burgoyne's back"). On Howe's approach to Philadelphia, Washington successfully repositioned regiments to meet him, Howe won two battles in succession one south of Philadelphia, one north of it, but Howe did not follow up either victory, so historians "dis[respect]" him for lack of "pursuit"; it looks so easy on paper. Just look at the map in the library! And, Napoleon in the next century drowned so many panicked retreating Austrians in some battle or another with a cavalry pursuit. But the withdrawing Continentals were not panicked and their regiments had rifleman company sharpshooters and small bore artillery with grapeshot integrated into each one, so I want to know, What was the British ammunition supply at the end of each engagement? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Replaced "surprise" with the failure to ambush Washington. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) He was largely inactive in the North throughout 1779 and did not launch many major campaigns [...] Already edited. Does "North" refer to the Northern United States? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) In the "North" as in Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War --- but NOT the Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  Question: Wow, I didn't realise that Saratoga was such a turning point. However, according to the Saratoga campaign article, it happened in 1777, so wouldn't it make sense to refer to the Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga if he was "largely inactive in the North throughout 1779"? Perhaps there's a date range of Clinton's activities that I'm not seeing? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) You are correct, I mixed them up. Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga is correct. The significance of Saratoga is that the military staff in the Courts of Europe - notably at Prussia and Frederick the Great personally - assessed the Continental Army's performance with one-year enlistments as promising a real fight going forward. Ahhhhh, and also the factual reality underpinning the situation "on the ground", the development of the Continental Army becoming more competent in the field while engaged with British regulars, Loyalist militia, and their Indian allies. - The Brits lost an entire army, so Lord North's Tories had to try for another peace settlement with Congress to appease the Whig Opposition in Parliament, hopefully (Hail Mary pass) to settle the "American war" before France entered the conflict as a Congressional military ally, and so both recognizing and enabling the United States of America as an independent nation. - Vergennes in the French Court jumped on Saratoga as the lever to overcome French Court resistance and his chief rival to running administration of French government. He got expanded aid to Congress, and King Louis XVI signed on for a military partnership in Treaty of Alliance, which Vergennes would shortly leverage into an allied Bourbon war on Britain, his mid-term objective. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. I wikilinked to Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga; should still look good. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Revolution as civil war

Resolved

Resolved points

From early on [...] Early on from when? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC) From the outset when the British began probing into the southern theater back-country 1777-8. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Changed to use TVH's wording above. Also switched "dilemma" to "problem". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (amounting to 14 percent of those engaged) This parenthetical thought is a detail that would be better in Battle of Cowpens. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)  Done — I also moved the sentence in question and combined it with first coverage of Cowpens. Also mentioned Banastre Tarleton by name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Better. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  Done by other editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) While Clinton organized a regiment of Black Pioneers [...] Did he organise the entire unit called the Black Pioneers or just a fraction of it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC) The source mentioned the entire regiment, without detail of how component companies were raised or integrated marshaled formed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  Done. Replaced "a regiment of" with "the" to describe the entire unit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Virginia may have lost 30,000 in total. Losses from deaths, escapes, or both? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Bibko, p. 59, only mentions escapes, which is now how the statement reads. That estimate comes from Thomas Jefferson, which I also mentioned in the statement in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)  Done by another editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict [...] Already edited. If it's the ARW, it'd be nice to mention it by name here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)  Done — Changed "conflict" to 'American Revolutionary War'. Btw, the edit summary for this edit should read wouldn't hurt, not "would hurt". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  Done by another editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending

• Wealthy Loyalists wielded great influence in London and successfully convinced the British government that most of the colonists were sympathetic toward the Crown [...] Gwillhickers recently changed this back. I don't see the need to mention that wealthy Loyalists "wielded great influence"; it's decorative and removing it so that the sentence reads Wealthy Loyalists convinced the British government that most of the colonists were sympathetic to the Crown [...] would not result in any loss of the point being conveyed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Imo, the phrase "great influence" further illuminates the Loyalist relationship with the British gov and is consistent with the idea that convincing them of great Loyalist support was an easy effort, not something that had to be hammered away at. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the phrase, "great influence" may be lifted directly from the source. On the other hand, if a group has 'great influence', they are 'convincing', so I prefer greater economy with fewer superlatives, "Loyalists convinced the British" in the active voice (old-timey, less literary Strunk and White 2018 [1959]). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is that it's not surprising that British subjects that are loyal to the kingdom and have money to spend can influence the government. If it were unexpected that might be a reason for inclusion, but right now it's like saying "I love you," he said lovingly instead of "I love you", he said coldly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• British military planners relied on popular Loyalist uprisings that never materialized in the amount they had expected. Gwillhickers recently reverted this. If the uprisings did happen, I strongly suggest British military planners relied on Loyalist uprisings that occurred less than expected. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I only added some context here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:, Tenryuu just accepted your point and tried to enfold it into the previous edit on the table.

- To Tenryuu's query, it was as Gwillhickers indicated, the Loyalist response was less 'uprising' than "isolated recruitment", and that was (a) 'insufficient' to alter Patriot control of the countryside, and (b) 'inadequate' to British military requirements for additional auxiliary regiments. The German 'mercenaries' suffered in the hot humid climate, so their service in the southern theater service was mostly restricted to port city garrison duty (The British Foreign Office classifies Washington DC summers as 'tropical' duty, as it does equatorial Africa; the coastal Carolinas are worse than DC). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion Not sure how far it would stray from the source, but would it make sense to say British military planners relied on recruiting Loyalists, which was ultimately insufficient? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I like, "British military planners relied on recruiting Loyalists in the Carolinas, but their numbers proved insufficient to overmatch the Patriots either in the countryside, or their State militia regiments in the field." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• One outstanding Loyalist militia unit provided some of the best troops in British service. How is this encyclopedically relevant? Sounds puffy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Historical context. I find it interesting that some Loyalists were ready for the task and measured up to professional British soldiers – an idea achieved with one sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The core of Tarlton's American Legion was made up of Loyalist recruits out of New Jersey. The legion formation were a mix of cavalry riding an infantryman behind him, who dismounted to deploy coordinated foot and horse formations in the assault. These were very good combat troops by all accounts (Babits 1998), and the only Loyalist unit given the honor prestige of a commission in the regular British Army. The British Legion lost over 85% at the Battle of Cowpens to a Continental bayonet charge. It was a strategic blow for the British, the remnants were absorbed into the British garrison within Charleston limits. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Did some rewording and added TVH's bit about receiving a commission to explain why they were notable; I left a comment to add the relevant citation from where the commission was received (I'm assuming it's Babits 1998). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• [...] or performed military service while dressed as women [...] The gist as far as I could tell is that women were not allowed to be on the front lines, but disguised themselves to do so? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, during battle dressed as women they would be expected to augment regimental stations processing wounded, assist surgeons at hospital, and prepare bivouac for the return of combatants when fighting was ended. I think "it came out of nowhere" because "cross-dressing" in any form was considered remarkable among the men elected to the legislature of the time. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion Ok, I know why it feels strange now; the expectation that women perform tasks while dressed as women is being emphasised. "Fought" was clearly done while crossdressing, and I'm guessing spying and direct combat support potentially involved crossdressing as well. If that's the case, why not emphasise the crossdressing instead? I'm not sure what their expected tasks are classified, so feel free to replace "auxiliary tasks" with the correct term: Women also assumed military roles: aside from auxiliary tasks like treating the wounded or setting up camp [bivouac?], some crossdressed to directly support combat, fight, or act as spies on both sides of the Revolutionary War. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I know I used the term first, because I was sort of streaming the thoughts, but seeing it in place as a copyedit is a little bit surprising to the 70+ year-old -- maybe too 'Metro-look' Cosmopolitan Magazine-ish for the 'summary encyclopedic style'. How about, replace 'crossdressed' with "dressed as men"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Virginia General Assembly later cited her bravery: she "performed extraordinary military services, and received a severe wound at the battle of Germantown", fighting dressed as a man and "with the courage of a soldier". Is there a larger, intact quote that addresses all four points? The "fighting dressed as a man" seems to come out of nowhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If memory serves, that is the direct quote from the Resolution of the General Assembly. I regret I only took time to research that far, but I did want to expand the previous generalized plaudit with some detail to justify mentioning her by name. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion It just looks strange to have the quotation being broken up by "fighting dressed as a man" (which appears to not be part of the quote). If it's not part of the quote, it can go either before or after to let the two quote fragments join together. If there's text between "battle of Germantown" and "with the courage [...]" we can add an ellipsis to show that text is omitted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Many Indians were involved in the fight between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River, mostly on the British side. Just making sure they were allied with the British and not involved in fighting (for either side) on "the British side of the Mississippi River". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ach. It changes up so much, the Gulf territories are a moving target.

Florida was colonized first by the Spanish. Then, at the 1763 Treaty of Paris, France ceded Louisiana to the Spanish, Spain ceded to the British, (a) West Florida (think Gulf Coast-some inland of modern Alabama, Mississippi, and adjacent Florida Panhandle), and (b) East Florida (think modern state of Florida less the Panhandle, the Florida Peninsula alone).

So, answer to query: the Southeast Indian tribes allied with the Spanish (in modern Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee) fought in British West Florida to attack the British garrisons at Mobile and Pensacola. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

New section 'Overall results'

@DTParker1000, Tenryuu, and TheVirginiaHistorian: It seems the new section (Overall Results of the Revolutionary War) that was just added, while very interesting, is a bit over-done. The section is mostly devoted to slavery, filled with tangential details that didn't occur until some years later. There is also a serious citation overkill situation. Unless a statement seems highly unusual or controversial, it need only be cited with one or two sources – certainly not five to ten citations in a row. Also, for the last several months we have been employing one citation convention throughout the article, (an FA requirement) using the same format for all cites/sources. Some work is needed in that area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some tangential text, some citations have been removed, and some prose has been condensed. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion part A

Agree; the whole section is mostly unnecessary, and duplicates a section from American Revolution. This article, as the name indicates and the hatnote underlines, is about military actions primarily, with the Aftermath covered at American Revolution. Copying 10kb of text here from the parent article only opens the possibility of divergence between two very similar sections, or duplicate maintenance in two places. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) At edits here, here, here, here. --- Copy edit for style, distribute footnotes to cite locations, limit multiple sources to scholar RS. NET PROSE SIZE (text only) = 99kB, 15,728 words. - More work to do to align citations to HarvRef format. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Many thanks to DTParker1000 for his/her great research effort and coming up with all those sources. It must have taken an appreciable amount of your time. I think I speak for everyone when I say we took no pleasure in shrinking your original section down to a fraction of its size, but as was explained above, the section was a bit over-done. If you feel a certain item should be kept in the section please let us know. We are not hard-liners around here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be shortened and written in a more neutral tone. The powers of the British king and even the aristocracy are exaggerated and of course in the aftermath of the ARA only 6% of the U.S. population could vote,[1] which was probably the same amount as before the revolution. And while the U.S. constitution has been copied, it was not written until 1789. It might be better to say that the war allowed the newly independent states to form the first modern republic, which would become a model for other nations. TFD (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion part B

Agree, in that there are several clauses, sentences related to the 'American Republic' (New Republic Era of US historiography). That is the subsequent national political evolution beyond the military war establishing a 'constitutional revolution' from monarchy to republic. However, it is of some note, that on the world stage, at 6% (larger % among citizens not living tribally, larger % among freemen not indentured or enslaved, larger % of men alone) not only did a larger percent of the total American colonial population vote, embracing 15-20% of the adult males in some counties, but that vote was more broadly distributed socially and geographically than in Britain. Britain in its turn at the time, far surpassed the rest of the world in free political expression and active engagement among its residents, from free speech, to voting, to protests, to London's Gordon Riots during the ARW that shut down the capital for the better part of a month. And, 'new section' percolating ... relative to the expanding, leveling franchise, all the veterans, enlisted white and free black, who returned and accepted their land grants on the frontier, then owned the acreage outright, immediately upon relocation to occupy their claim. They then qualified to vote in Virginia, and elsewhere --- hence the examples of free black grandsons in Virginia's western counties being drafted for the Confederate Army from militia rolls of property owners in the 'late unpleasantness' that you may refer to (no, they were NOT enrolled, but turned away, as were the sons of black vets from the Battle of New Orleans, who volunteered by their drilled regiments and were turned away by those in grey who fought to perpetuate slavery into the 20th century --- instead of the Confederate states-rights-and-independence that the 'Lost Cause' advocates imagine...but I digress... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Social history of colonies and early states

discussion part C

The acts and executive actions carried out in the name of the King were made by the King-in Parliament or the King-in-Council, in other words the British parliament and cabinet. The original complaint was that Americans should have the rights of Englishmen, so that local legislatures would determine taxes and Americans would have the same civil rights they would have in England. The ARW achieved this. More Americans could vote because more of them met the property requirements. But the narrative that Americans overthrew a despotic king and established freedom is simplistic. The king was in most ways a figurehead and freedom was mostly expanded in the years after the ARW. Nor was there a feudal system in pre-revolutionary America. TFD (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: That's mostly correct, though prior to the US Constitution, Virginia ended feudal entail, primogeniture and its established church, and it confiscated church lands, all undoing the pre-existing economic realities found in a feudalistic regime. I have strived over the course of eight months to expunge from this article any remaining ideological "exceptionalism" that purports "Americans overthrew a despotic king and established freedom". To specifically rebut that anachronism (that's the most kind characterization I can think of for it), I have expanded the beginning 'Prelude' and the ending 'Diplomacy' sections, at first noting the American Patriot ideology was derivative of the British Whig, the independence Congress was defended in Parliament by the Whig Opposition from 1775. The ARW narrative does not presume Congress achieved independence alone. Not only is coverage the French assistance expanded, and the Dutch at Sint Eutasius. They are more fully linked in the text and illustrated in battles, ship-gifting and portraiture. The Spanish contribution has an illustrated section coordinate with the Clark operations they made possible. Native Americans now have an expanded section. It features portraits of war chiefs on both sides to replace an artist's conception of American Army and militia uniforms without an Indian anywhere among the twenty soldiers pictured. After the Yorktown disaster, Lord North's administration fell as the independent 'country gentlemen' in Commons deserted the Tories to join the Whig caucus. It was Whig Opposition Lord Rockingham who insisted George III promise American independence before he would accept Prime Ministership (Rockingham's portrait is now featured in the article). It was the Whig Prime Ministers Rockingham and Shelburne who secured a peace treaty ratified in Parliament that met all five unanimously declared American war aims: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi and its navigation to the sea, and Newfoundland fishing and curing rights. I pointedly searched for and found an attractive portrait of George III in his parliamentary robes unlike the usually pictured ermine stoles at coronation found in American high school histories. And at the last of the ARW, I stressed George III's crucial political support for American independence, peace, and trade in his 4 December 1782 "Speech Before the Throne" opening that session of Parliament. It set the stage for Paris negotiations with the great powers favorable to the Americans. Spain gave up its claims to Georgia as a buffer state, and France relented from it is demands for a province south of the Great Lakes, from the Appalachians to the Mississippi (see maps at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War#Preliminary agreements). It may be that we must concede that there was a constitutional revolution to overthrow monarchy for a republic, by leaders presupposing later generations could be free to change what they had done. There was no "Little Red Book" for everyone under the age of fourteen to memorize chapter and verse. But if you do find any remaining echoes of "the narrative that Americans overthrew a despotic king and established freedom" in the article, please point it out here, so we can collegially root it out together. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Although some feudal institutions were imported into America and some remnants remain, it would be an exaggeration to say that America was feudal before the ARW. TFD (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Exactly so, only portions of some elements survived the transplanting. By the late 1600s, we have English travelogues noting the colonial settlements were filled with "mongrels" of European cross-breeding among English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, French, and intermarriage with Indians and Africans too, he observed. Whether an independent spirit so temperamentally disposed, or an outcast pregnant indentured servant, it was just too easy to find an alternative to whatever colonial social structure there might have been: migrate (a) into a mirror-colonial community as those to Rhode Island from Massachusetts, or (b) to the frontier borderlands of two cultures in family-farm isolation, paying the occasional pig as tribute to a hunting party that had not caught any deer (cheaper than either landlord quitrents or church tithing, and not in specie coin), or (c) in permanent settlement among multicultural interracial "maroon colonies" among impenetrable swamps and remote mountain hollows. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: Just to be clear about your first post in this thread. The ‘American Revolution’ is a political one, not a social one. There is a constitutional revolution in government from monarchy to republic. To deny it was so is not persuasive if the case advanced is based on a "straw man". To my knowledge, no practicing American historian at any accredited university claims the straw man: That the American Revolution ushered in an immediate total transformation of society. Not so anywhere, in any way comparable to some few remaining scholars of the Russian Revolution who pretend there was a "New Soviet Man", and so on. The American constitutional revolution was a real one, regardless of a ‘New History corrective’ to the “exaggerated power” once attributed to the “Mother Country’s” imperial government by king and aristocracy. The critique is justifiable, to this extent: The fatal flaw in the imperial regime ruling the North American seaboard was in its allowing native-born landowners to sit on the Royal Governor’s Council. They then could form familial allegiances with those in the elected House of Burgesses to effectively nullify the Crown’s appointed Royal Governor For example, the ‘Thrusting out’ of Virginia’s Royal Governor Sir John Harvey in 1635. By 1712, a majority of the Governor’s Council in Virginia was native-born with family ties to the lower-house self-elected officers. That network continued through to the last Virginia Royal Assembly in 1775. The son of a member of the Governor’s Council, Royal Attorney General John Randolph, --- Peyton Randolph chaired both the Virginia House of Burgesses and the First Continental Congress (and the first three Virginia Revolutionary Conventions on 1 August 1774, 20 March 1775, and 17 July 1775). While the social history of the “revolutionary era” as defined in pre-1950s American historiography may not show much difference in the short-run between two decades adjacent, 1765-75 versus 1775-85, a comparison between the social hierarchies in place for every state in the Union will show a substantial variation between those extant in the two decades bracketing those first two, 1755-65 versus 1785-95. Just as Pauline Maier argued, serious students of American History can use the old historiography in its good insights and well sourced accounts, while leaving behind its weaknesses. Here we have again restated Jackson Turner’s 1893 Frontier Thesis, "American democracy was (a) born of no theorist's dream; (b) it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. (c) It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier" (enumeration added). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Not having read Turner's The Frontier in American History, yet, I am deducing from this discussion that the unexplored and ever expanding "frontier" had a unique effect on the psyche of the people who were born in and lived in this new world environment. It would seem that the vast American frontier presented to these people, long detached from the plights and influences of centuries old monarchical rule, with all its hierarchies, and its imbued social influences, a sort of blank slate, devoid of any pretext, on which they could freely express their own sense of social justice and democracy. Bearing in mind that no one group of people invented the 'wheel', I have to agree with Turner, from what I've read above, that these ideals were not so much brought over on the 'Mayflower', but were greatly inspired by the virgin new world, or the frontier. After the ARW was won, the last remaining patriarchal ties to the old world were cut, allowing that 'wheel' to move forward and unobstructed on its own. If this can be expressed, with the understanding that this is the 'war' article, with a couple of sentences, perhaps in the Aftermath section, I believe the article would be improved comprehensively in terms of what the ARW achieved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Turner, Frederick Jackson (1920). The frontier in American history. New York : H. Holt and company. Turner, Frederick Jackson (1906). Rise of the new West, 1819-1829. New York and London : Harper & brothers. TheVirginiaHistorian, I was commenting on the text: "The American Revolution not only got rid of a king, it profoundly changed society itself. Prior to the Revolution, everyone except the king had their "betters." Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth. The American Revolution got rid of this entire system of aristocracy." It makes it appear as if the American colonies were like pre-revolutionary France or Russia. The colonies did not have an aristocratic hierarchy. In fact, the structure of American society was not upended by revolution. They colonies were ruled by the British government in the name of the king (King-in-Parliament, King-in-Council, etc.), not by the king himself. Britain had ended absolute monarchy in 1688. Finally, the observation that ideas of social justice and democracy (whether imported or developed or a combination of both) already existed in the colonies is correct. The complaint was that London had illegally curtailed the powers of local institutions of government. So the ARW did not transform society in the same sense that the French and Russian revolutions did. TFD (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Colonial governance

discussion part D

The colonies had their royal governors and other such royal officials, who were an extension of the Crown, and who oversaw colonial affairs, the courts, law enforcement, (unrepresented) tax collecting and such. None of the colonists could assume these royal appointments through a voting process so indeed society, who was still under the rule of a King, was very much layered as it was in England, where positions of influence occurred through the process of nepotism and cronyism. The ARW changed all of this completely, which indeed had a profound effect on common society. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) As explained in History.com: the Declaration of Independence "portray[ed] George III as an inflexible tyrant who had squandered his right to govern the colonies. In reality the situation was more complex: Parliamentary ministers, not the crown, were responsible for colonial policies, though George still had means of direct and indirect influence."[2] It is important not to be confused by the fact that Great Britain retained language that gives the impression that the sovereign exercised power on his or her discretion, such as King-in-Parliament or King-in-Council. The colonial officials did not constitute a ruling class. The elites in America were not medieval aristocrats, but local men who had earned their fortunes through plantations, trade and industry. Laws were passed by colonial legislatures and royal governors usually consulted them in the administration of the colonies. In many cases the royal officials were actually prominent colonials. In essence, society operated much as it would after the revolution. However, resentment was caused by the British parliament raising taxes and, colonial governors ignoring local legislatures and the British government using admiralty courts based in London instead of local courts for prosecutions against colonials. That's what provoked rebellion. The ultimate objective however was independence, not social revolution. TFD (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC) The colonial officials were not elected by the common populace, and it's doubtful that the royal class in England had nothing to do with their appointments. When the ARW broke out, virtually all of these officials became loyalists. Royal officials were in a class far apart from the average colonist. I'm not seeing much of anything that would blur the distinction from these people with those of the unrepresented common class. In terms of actual article improvement what would you specifically have the article say, and with what RS would you use? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Many colonial officials were elected by the colonial legislatures and this practice continued after the revolution. Otherwise, royal governors brought few officials with them and they did not form a separate class. The colonial elites were made up of people such as George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who would maintain an elite position after independence unless they remained loyal tp Britain. The days of kings appointing their friends and relatives to governorships had gone out with the 1688 revolution. TFD (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Did the common colonist, the farmer, the shop keeper, etc, have a hand in voting for the various royal governorships and for other royal officials? No, they were in a separate class. Washington, et al, obtained their "elite" position via the popular vote. Washington led troops into numerous battles. Did the King ever do that? At this point, if you're aiming to amend or change the article, it would be best to speak in specific terms, supported by specific sources, lest we get into another one of these never ending and opinionated discussions about what constitutes a class. Would you provide us with an actual proposal that would be incorporated into the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC) We were talking about an addition you want to include in the article. I note that none of the sources support the text or they are sourced to a Trotskyist website. Your idea that colonial America had an upper class of royal officials is a fantasy. The monarch was and is the personification of the British state. But the view that he actually ran the government or that the current sovereign rules all her states in any meaningful way is wrong. In fact the common citizen who owned sufficient property voted for legislators who chose most of the "royal officials." Or they directly elected officials such as sheriffs and mayors. After Jefferson became president the voting pool was expanded. TFD (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Social history of colonies ... continued

discussion part E

Apparently you're confusing me with another editor. I made no such proposal, or any such additions, nor did I introduce the "Trotskyist" source involving the interview with historian Gordon Wood who is a widely noted expert on the ARW, one such book winning the Pulitzer Prize. The original edit in question, asserting "layers" in society was made here. From there that edit was trimmed down to a fraction of its size by at least two editors, including myself. And if anything is a fantasy it's the idea that the British Crown had no hand in the governance of its own colonies, and that there was no distinction between the ruling class, soon to become loyalists, having no ties whatsoever to the Crown, and the common colonist, and that the ARW had no part in bringing this arrangement to an end. Before American independence all land belonged to the monarch. The large land owners acquired their land via Proprietary and royal charters. They were indeed a privy class, closely associated with the Crown, most of whom became loyalists when war broke out. This class was distinctly different from that of the common colonist. In any event, this is the original edit, and it seems to be well sourced: It got rid of all the layers, except for the bottom one, the slaves. Slavery had existed for 3,000 years. It was legal and normal - it fits in with a layered society. The American Revolution changed that. So again, I ask, what amends or changes do you propose for the article, and with what source(s) are you supporting any of your assertions? It seems that TVH is handling matters rather well, below, so you might want to reserve any contentions about no layered society, and no monarchical oversight in colonial governance. It would seem if the colonists, with no classes, were free to run their own affairs in the capacity you claim, there would have been no rebellion in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I was referring to the paragraph before that. It reads, "The American Revolution not only got rid of a king, it profoundly changed society itself. Prior to the Revolution, everyone except the king had their "betters." Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth. The American Revolution got rid of this entire system of aristocracy. There is even a clause in the Constitution prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility in America."[3] Your first two sources are the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). But I was referring to the preceding paragraph. In any case, can you show where the third source says, "It got rid of all the layers?" The sentence anyway doesn't make sense. How could they get rid of the slave-owning layer of society but not the slave layer? So I would get rid of both paragraphs as incorrect and unsourced. TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I read the WSWS article which is an interview with Gordon S. Wood. He explains why the Declaration of Independence refers to the King. Jefferson believed that since the British government had no authority over America, the King had betrayed his American subjects by "combin[ing] with others [i.e., the British Parliament] to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." He wasn't claiming that the King personally was directing the British government. He also says that America did not have a European or British type titled aristocracy but was stratified with people like Washington, Adams and Jefferson who were styled gentlemen forming the elite, men of commerce such as Benjamin Franklin forming the middle class, then the mechanics and farmers, the indentured servants and finally the slaves. But I see that as an opinion and we would need secondary sources to establish its weight. TFD (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC) It would seem that finding a source that supports the idea of the ARW getting rid of a king can be done with our eyes closed. Also, I don't think it was necessary for Jefferson to remind the King that he was the ruler of the British empire. Even though there was a Parliament, the King is the one who oversaw that entity, which ultimately governed the colonies. Certainly you're not suggesting that the colonists were ultimately free to rule themselves. They were bound by English law, as were all Englishmen, however they were getting the short end of the stick, being unrepresented, etc. As for the idea of "layers in society", were there not those in colonial America with titles of nobility, royal governors, members of the court, tax collectors and such? These people were socially far apart from the common colonist. Also, you were the one who mentioned that Washington, et al, was an "elite", which in a sense was true, but that term is a bit inappropriate, since we are referring to elected officials, and in Washington's case, someone who marched into battle. He wasn't one to sit back and watch his men fight from the rear, as did Santa Anna and Napoleon all dressed in pomp. In any case, it's understood that we don't say anything that the sources don't say. If we are to refer to Gordon Wood, it should be from his books, as I too actually have reservations about that Socialist website. Again, it seems that TVH is handling the content in question more than adequately, so I'll leave matters to him, primarily. Btw, I agree that "The revolution did not establish civil liberties but protected them". Perhaps we should say reestablished. I also agree with TVH, that the Aftermath section should limit itself to events that occurred no later than 1830. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) "then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth." Not entirely true. In the Peerage of Great Britain, new titles were created for socially mobile people. For example: Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson received the title of a baron in 1798, and a viscount in 1801. He was the son of a priest, Edmund Nelson, and his paternal ancestors were "moderately prosperous" commoners. John Scott, 1st Earl of Eldon received the title of a baron in 1799, and an earl in 1821. His father was a successful merchant, and his paternal grandfather was a clerk. John FitzGibbon, 1st Earl of Clare received the title of a baron in 1799, and was already an Earl in the Peerage of Ireland. His father was a successful lawyer. Alexander Hood, 1st Viscount Bridport received the title of a viscount in 1800. His father was a priest, holding the position of a vicar. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC) "Also, you were the one who mentioned that Washington, et al, was an "elite", which in a sense was true, but that term is a bit inappropriate, since we are referring to elected officials, and in Washington's case, someone who marched into battle. He wasn't one to sit back and watch his men fight from the rear" Irrelevant. An elite is formed by "a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society." That does not mean that this elite consists of people who have never sought political office or military positions. Within the British Empire, several successful politicians and military officers of modest backgrounds were elevated to the nobility. And Washington may have never held a title of nobility, but he was a member of the American gentry. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Although we should use books rather than an interview as a source the interview probably accurately represents Wood's views. It seems though that you are rejecting them and need to provide a source that supports them. I disagree with your view of the British Empire. Great Britain indeed got rid of a king who was an absolute monarch in 1688 and replaced him with a constitutional monarch. The result was that the powers of the king were exercised by parliament and the rights of subjects were recognized. Parliament abused those rights in the case of America (that's considered to be a fact, not just an opinion) and the Americans rebelled against British rule. Since their original contract was with the king that is the phrasing they used, despite the fact his powers had passed to Parliament. There never was an aristocracy of colonial officials. No titles were created in the Americas and few officials had titles. The titles they held were rarely of ancient creation and usually a reward for colonial or military service. Incidentally, although I said Washington was a member of the colonial elite, that is exactly what your source says. The elite mostly sided with the Revolution, which is why it was successful. TFD (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) The "Trotsky" site is not 'my source'. As I've indicated, we should refer to Gordon Wood from his book(s). It was the "Constitutional monarch" that was responsible for the lack of colonial representation, excessive taxes, the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, et al, and it would be a bit naive to assume the king hand no hand in these affairs, not that you have. Though the king was subject to Parliament, and Parliament, btw, subject to the king, who was at liberty to reject certain measures they proposed, as explained in Thomas Paine's Common Sense, he was nevertheless the focus of colonial descent, and rightly so. Again, Washington being referred to as an "elite" is highly misleading, as he was, once more, elected as both Commander in Chief and as the President, and again, one who had assumed the role of the common foot soldier time and again. His perilous crossing of the icy Delaware, alone, more than substantiates the depth of this idea. All labels aside, this is indeed what distinguished him from the likes of a monarch, royal governors, etc. And let's not forget, at the end of the ARW, Washington relinquished all military authority, and in doing so was even praised by King George and widely likened to Cincinnatus who also forfeited all power and returned to his farm. Again, the royal governors, their royal peers, tax collectors, etc, soon to become loyalists, were in a class far apart from the common colonist and figures like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al, which all came to an end after the ARW. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The problem is that you are the one who insists that America had a feudal class system and the source you use to support your claim says that Washington et al. were the elite. The lack of colonial representation, excessive taxes, the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, et al, were all actions of the British Parliament, just as acts of Congress in the U.S. are actions of the U.S. Congress. While technically the sovereign can withhold royal assent, the last time that happened was in 1708 (the Scottish Militia Bill). The constitutional convention is that the sovereign acts on the advice of his ministers, that is, the cabinet that is responsible to Parliament. If you have sources that support your view of colonial America, please present them. Furthermore, you have not quantified the royal peers, tax collectors, etc. who would become loyalists. AFAIK there were no royal peers in America. TFD (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Not all loyalists had close ties to the King, but many of them did. Wikipedia has an article that explains exactly who many of the loyalists were before they became loyalists. "They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links)." Many of these people were in a class above the common colonist. This doesn't constitute a "feudal system" but there indeed was a class of colonists who were privy to the King, which easily explains why they became Loyalists at the onset of the ARW. Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC) TVH's mention of the Randolph family (relatives of Jefferson) provides a good example of the colonial elite. Sir John Randolph, a Virginia planter, was speaker of the elected House of Burgesses and the attorney-general. He was knighted in London in 1732 during a visit as a representative of the House of Burgesses. His son Peyton also served as speaker and attorney-general and was the first president of the Continental Congress. Another son John was also a member of the House of Burgesses and attorney-general and remained loyal and left America for Britain. His son Edmund became Attorney-General and Secretary of State of the U.S. There wasn't an elite made up of colonial officials who remained loyal and a separate class of oppressed plantation owners who rebelled. TFD (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC) User DTParker1000's original edit didn't use the term feudal system, but only maintained there were classes, or "layers" in society, which happens to be true of any society, btw. But not colonial America? While the large land owning colonists elected colonial assemblies, these entities were closely associated with Royal governors and often had ties to the crown. A separate class from the average colonist. While it was the King and Parliament who imposed taxes and the various acts, they were not implemented by the common colonist, but by Royal Governors, officials and those closely associated with him and/or the Crown. While you keep denying there was different classes in colonial America you continue to refer to Washington, etc as an "elite". Now you're asking for sources that support the idea that many of those who had positions in colonial government and were closely associated with the king and Parliament became loyalists, which should be common knowledge for anyone half familiar with the ARW. Your notion that there were no royal peers, e.g. Royal governors, appointed by the king, who had any number of official subordinates, ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ), is simply not true. There indeed was a class of people who felt oppressed, unrepresented, and it is largely that class who rebelled, led by "elites" like Washington, Samuel Adams, et al -- or are you actually suggesting they rebelled for no reason? While you keep asking for sources you've yet to produce one for your contention that "there were no royal peers in America." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC) In the modern sense of the term, there were classes in colonial America and that persists today especially in the use of the term "middle class." While DTParker1000's edit doesn't use the term feudal, it is clearly referring to a pre-modern class structure that does not exist today. ("Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth.") When I said that Washington was part of the elite, I was summarizing Wood's interpretation which you cited as a source. Whether or not I agree with Wood is irrelevant since we are discussing what the article should say, not my interpretation. The problem is that your view that there was an elite composed of a court of royal courtiers isn't supported by your source. Your new links explain the positions of royal governors: they were appointed by the Board of Trade which was a committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, and acted under their instructions. In other words they were as they are today effectively appointed and instructed by the British cabinet, not the king. Your last source says that George II opposed the appointment of Amherst as Governor Virginia. Yes British monarchs sometimes oppose government policy (watch The Crown to see how that works,} but ultimately the decision is with cabinet. There is only one reference to numbers of royal officials in your sources. It says that the British cabinet officer responsible for the colonies began appointing a number of colonial officials after 1763. That was like 11 years before the Revolution. You should also be aware that loyalists came from all classes and although some royal officials became loyalists, others remained. The colonial governors Jonathan Trumbull and Nicholas Cooke continued as governors after the Revolution, debunking the theory that all colonial officials were puppets of the king. it is sometimes called the first American civil war, because it divided families. TFD (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

continued...

I was the one who produced sources that said while Loyalists came from all classes, they very often came from privy classes closely associated to Royal Governors and their circle of constituants. In general, the Loyalists were older, more well off and had associations with Parliament and the king. Are you also saying that your "British cabinet officer"(s) were in the same class as the common colonist and had no more association to Parliament and the Crown as they? Parliament, the King, implemented taxes, acts, etc via a privy class of Royal governors and the various officials that worked under them. This was ended after the ARW. To think they let the common colonist make these impositions on themselves would be and is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that there were very few imported colonial officials, most of the imports were career civil servants or military officers, they did not form a social class, most officials were members of local wealthy merchant or planter families, most of whom remained in America after the revolution. America wasn't France or Russia, where an aristocratic class was overthrown and became emigres. For example, George Clinton who would later become governor of New York and Vice President of the United States was appointed Clerk of the Ulster County Court of Common Pleas by the royal governor, George Clinton. Unlike France and Russia, there was a lot of continuity. And of course a lot of the colonial officials were elected, especially at the municipal level. Mostly, royal governors ruled worked with local worthies rather than bringing in their own people. The only exception as one of your sources said was that before the Revolution they imported officials to enforce the unpopular tax and navigation acts. TFD (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Very few"? "Imported"? Okay, the discussion is getting a bit fuzzy. "Imported" or domestic, "very few", or more, these individuals were a privy class, most of whom became loyalists, who, at the onset of the ARW, typically migrated north to Nova Scotia, or to the south, and were indeed in a class apart from the common colonist who largely comprised the Continental Army. I fail to see what is so amazing about this that this must be hacked out in such a lengthy capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Very few would mean usually the governor and his secretary. However in some cases the governors were elected. TFD (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A note on captions

Discussion on captions

William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs in England and installed his own innovative government. Some few recent edits for captions on the page seem to reflect the work of an avid art historian. I encourage all to explore the Wikipedia Manual of Style, WP:CAPTION. The following are my takeaways for a lengthy history article such as the American Revolutionary War. “A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article.” Details of artwork provenance are available to the reader by a “click through to the image description page”. The guidelines explain, “If you have nothing to say about it, then the image probably does not belong in the article.” In the example coded to the right, using the 'thumb' image, the parameter 'upright=1.0' allows easy tweek of pic size; the parameter 'alt=text description' is used to describe the image for sight-impaired readers. The purpose is to “draw the reader into the article”. Image captions should be succinct and informative. “Identify the subject of the picture.” Editors here populated the article with an image every 400 words to add visually interest within extended sections of text. But to balance that many images, captions are kept succinct; most are 2-3 lines to avoid either crowding image frames into adjacent sections below, or opening large white spaces between sections. In this example, the reader becomes curious about William of Normandy's new form of government and reads the text adjacent to learn what it is. The example is meant to illustrate a passage about William of Normandy's innovations in monarchial government, such as 'trial by jury' for a manor's peasant in the King's court composed of one's "peers", that is, local residents other than the Lord of the Manor's relatives or his soldiers-at-arms. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

‘Global war and diplomacy’ - Robinvp11 and undiscussed reverts

At #Global war and diplomacy, Robinvp11 as the reverting editor gave a fragmented rationale for wholesale disruption of the section without discussion at Talk.

The first in a series begins with this, which has four (4) objectionable elements:

Issues with Robinvp11, resolved

(#1) Robinvp11 removed image of the King choosing PMs before and after the political effects of Yorktown posted here: (1.a) Robin initiates his edit-post wp:original research without sourcing or discussion at Talk. He arbitrarily chooses to off-handedly replace picture (again, because this makes it seem as if George III was far more active than he actually was). The replacement: A blown-up image of only one (1) of the two (2) parties in Parliament that George III chose from for his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War. Comments: It is a violation of wp:BALANCE to omit or otherwise censor the constructive role George III had in the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War. He was the principal in the history event i.e. he was “actually” an active agent, rather than a passive figurehead of some inexplicit description. In his 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne to a public joint session of Parliament, George III declared for American independence, peace and trade. No, he did not finally retire as a princeling of the Holy Roman Empire in Brunswick, despite rumors in London parlors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) The Speech from the Throne is written by the prime minister, in this case, Lord Shelburne.(See Edmund Burke, Vol. 2, p. 13[4].) Parliament then debates and votes on the speech. In this case, Burke attacked the speech and the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it. TFD (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, and Ted Sorensen once wrote, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.". But it does not necessarily follow that President John F. Kennedy was a nullity in the history of Anglo-American relations for using it in his Inaugural Address. - Although there is a doctrine to dismiss "great men" influencing history, surely you do not presume to assert generally that George III and John F. Kennedy should be treated as nullities in historical narratives, or to specifically deny here that George III had a substantial role in ending the ARW? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) The speech from the throne is entirely different. That Elizabeth II or her representative reads a speech every year to the parliaments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 11 other sovereign states as well as 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, 15 overseas territories, two associated states and in the past dozens of other independent states and their provinces is a formality. She doesn't personally decide the government policies of all those territories. The reason that the prime ministers of each state write the speech is not that they are particularly qualified in speechwriting, but that they use the speech from the throne to outline what they intend to do in the current session of parliament. Presumably Kennedy agreed to the policies and opinions that Sorenson wrote in his speeches. TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Bon, good. Thank you for improving my understanding of the "Speech from the Throne" in the modern "Commonwealth" era of British Empire. That British "commonwealth" of independent nations is akin to what the First Continental Congress imagined in its Olive Branch Petition, to my understanding. - I see that you and I are agreed in this: Incoming PM Lord Rockingham was of importance in ending the ARW, significant historically and relevant to the ARW article. Lord Rockingham influenced the King's new policy for American independence. Perhaps you can support my restoring the now Robin-reverted gallery portrait of incoming PM 'Whig' Lord Rockingham paired with the outgoing PM 'Tory' Lord North, I will do shortly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. My point was that we cannot know a sovereign's views from the speech from the throne because the speech reflects the PM's views, although the speaker may add to it. George III exercised more influence than modern monarchs and may well have added to the speech or changed it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC) (#2) Robinvp11, without further discussion, asserting 14-words is longer than 34-words is insufficient reasoning posted here: (1.b) Robin perpetrates an unusual miscount on the article main-space, confusing the previous 15-words as longer than his own 34-words. The rationale: ”correct over long first sentence and (as indicated previously)” Article sentence of 15 words - "Tory Prime Minister Lord North had been the King's Prime Minister in Parliament since 1770." Robin revert run-on of 34 words - "Lord North, Prime Minister since 1770, delegated control of the war in North America to Lord George Germain and the Earl of Sandwich, who was head of the Royal Navy from 1771 to 1782." Comments: Nonsensical sequencing of two (2) scaled ordinal numbers. The article 15-word sentence is shorter than the purported 34-word “correction”. The misstatement is not sufficient justification to restructure a topic sentence at the beginning of a section without Talk discussion first. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) (#3) (see also #6, #9) Robinvp11 imposed POV that George III was not significant in ending the ARW posted here: (1.c) In an unsourced editor's wp:own proclamation without sourcing or discussion at Talk, Robin's POV: ”George III did not conduct government or strategy”. Comments: Robin violates wp:reliable sourcing. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in George III: A Personal History. King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160. – This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Just a comment on this: the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power - indeed with respect to America (as elsewhere) even George regarded himself more as the "executive agent for the maintenance of Parliamentary authority" (Ditchfield, George III: An Essay in Monarchy', p.110) in the spirit of the 1688 political settlement. He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited - I realise American historiography may be different here.Svejk74 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC) @Svejk74:, thanks for the reply. Does Ditchfield not acknowledge a Parliamentary party of "the King's Men" in George III pay from 1770 to 1785? The Edward Gibbon article infers his Commons seat was a sinecure of the King. I understood from a scan of the Cambridge Modern History v.6 (1925, Oxford University Press) for the late 1700s, that "Honest Billy" Pitt proposed some reforms, enhancing his reputation, such as abolishing Rotten boroughs in Commons (achieved in 1832) and restricting the Crown's ability to appoint Knighthoods at will to make a majority in the House of Lords (as political circumstances might require for the pleasure of "His Most Britannic Majesty"). Were there no British constitutional reforms touching on Crown and Parliament 1688-1953, William and Mary to Queen Elizabeth II? I concede that I may have misunderstood the term of art, "in the spirit of 1688" in British historiography, which does seem a bit of a sweeping generalization from the perspective of American historiography. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Alternatively, British scholar John Steven Watson, The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960), writes a recap of George III's direct Parliamentary influence, at Britannica, George III. It notes variously, (1) By 1770, George III was "still as obstinate as ever and still felt an intense duty to guide the country" […] he "used executive power for winning elections […]". (2) "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." (3) At the time people believed that corruption alone supported an administration that was equally incapable of waging war or ending it. This supposed increase in corruption was laid directly at the king’s door, for North wearily repeated his wish to resign, thus appearing to be a mere puppet of George III. (4) At backing William Pitt the Younger in the general election March 1784, the country, moved by reform, "as well as by treasury influence, overwhelmingly endorsed the king’s action.” George III subsequently withdrew from direct intervention in Parliament, allowing Pitt’s administration over His Majesty's objections. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Again, I think George's own opinions and the popular perception of his role and influence needs to be tempered with an understanding of the limits of that influence. Stephen Conway in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives a balanced view: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". George certainly played a role, but it shouldn't be overemphasised at the expense of, for example, the cabinet generally.Svejk74 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC) (#4) Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs posted here: (1.d) Robin deletes the two gallery portraits of successive Prime Ministers to George III, Lord North, and Lord Rockingham, leaving only a blown-up image of Lord North alone to lead the article. Comments: Robin persists in foisting an unrelenting POV bias on the article, without sourcing or discussion at Talk. That Lord North portrait is now placed it at the top of the section, renaming the section with the purpose of describing the Fall of the North Ministry to an unwarranted and undiscussed Exultation of the North Ministry. And as noted before, the edit-post removed King George III, the sovereign who appointed both Lord North and Lord Rockingham as his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War. Again, an unsourced and undiscussed revert to advance the misapprehension that George III had no significant role in ending the American Revolution. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) The second in the "Robin series" is this, which has five (5) objectionable elements: (#5) Robinvp11 altered source attribution about the Carlyle Commission posted here: (2.a) Source Hibbert wrote, "Before the Commission returned to London in November 1778, it recommended a change in British war policy." (Hibbert 2000, p. 160-161) Robin misrepresented the source: When the commissioners returned to London "in November 1778, they recommended a change in policy." - without a source, without discussion at Talk. Comments: Robin alters the source to lead readers into the error that the Commission did not leave London prepared to alter British policy making war on their fellow subjects. It is relevant because the change figures into why the "Country Gentlemen" of Commons deserting the Tory caucus to join the Whigs against any further prosecution of "American War". The Bourbon naval war had begun requiring huge new naval expenditure and the first invasion attempt on England just averted (Syrett 1998, p. 19). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) (#6) (see also #3, #9) Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III posted here: (2.b) Source Hibbert wrote, "George III still had hoped for victory in the South." (Hibbert 2008, p. 333) Robin misrepresented the source: North still hoped for victory in the South, [...] - without a source, without discussion at Talk. Comments: Robin persists in a POV about the end of the ARW, that it is somehow disconnected from and unrelated to the ruling Monarch of Britain, George III. George III was known to have influenced Parliament by corrupting both members in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons who were in his pay. The repeated edits dismissing George III's role in American independence, peace, and trade with Britain is unwarranted disruption of the page. There is no sourcing to support Robin's assertion, coloring, or bias to be introduced into the article. There is no discussion on his part to find a consensus here to overturn mainstream historiography on the topic that supports an effective rule by pre-dementia George III as king. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) These massive deletions made with no discussion while everyone else is taking the time to discuss matters in a line by line fashion is indeed disruptive. I would have have restored the deleted items in question on the spot. If you decided to make the corrections of which you refer you have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) @Gwillhickers:, thank you. I am reluctant to respond with anything that third-party administrators might view at first glance to be an "wp:edit war" (been there, done that). Better to allow the misrepresentations to stay up in the article, misleading some 1000 readers per day for a week (my estimate of how many of the 7000/day who will read down to Robin's disruption), and first document the case before taking action. An disruption sanction from the arbitration committee might better protect the page for the future long-run, rather than an off-handed response that gets me suspended for a week for edit-warring. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 7000 mislead readers a week is sort of a high price to pay for someone else's arrogant editing practice. Rolling over only encourages more of the same behavior. I would simply make a few corrections, and if they are deleted wholesale again, you could simply drop a note to Tenryuu where he can see what's going on for himself. If the sources support your statements it should earn any editor's support - you would think. You did not initiate any edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC) First of all, in and amongst the disruptive edits, Robin has done some good copyediting, trimming, rewriting, linking, that I do not want to lose or have to later replicate. Robin is a good writer, that's a fact to be taken advantage of here. The really sticky part is coming up soon. Just a reminder, Robin is the same fellow at the Military history Project who is a self-described expert, who authored a scholarly paper, for a noted think-tank, but all are anonymous, and to backup footnote can be found in the literature, only appeals to overlapping timelines. He is the editor who thought the article was not worthy of C-status at the Military history Project because he believed the ARW 1775-83 Infobox should be modeled on the European great power "Austrian War of Succession" without listing "Combatants" as is done at the "Spanish Civil War" Infobox. When I observed that the Continental Congress in 1775-1783 was NOT a "Great Power" as the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union, I was met with "crickets", no response either here at Talk or at the Military history Project discussion page --- and so we await yet a second one-month-13 day delay with no response to the upgrades here and posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. (1) I'd like to keep all the good contributions that Robin made, and not blank all of them out indiscriminately. (2) I'd like to keep my powder dry for just a day or two more. Then approach the problem in two stages, the first "before Treaty of Paris" edits, when I'll restore the relevant sourced material lost without disturbing the several positive edits, and the second stage, "after Treaty of Paris". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Your words of conciliation and caution are appreciated. Eight sections were committed here in Talk, mentioning the editor in question, which I was in agreement with. No one wants to blank out all of anyone's edits based on a couple of so called 'bold' edits, but at the same time it seems you shouldn't let your well sourced edits be removed so easily. A "good writer" doesn't merit a blank check, esp when we are at a stage where the article is being gone over with a fine toothed comb, and we are discussing article content first, before making significant or major edits. I'll leave the issues in question to your discretion. ~~ Gwillhickers (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC) (#7) Robinvp11 removed first step to Euro peace: international armistice posted here: (2.c) Source authors Green and Pole enumerated two initiatives by the British Parliament in Paris: (a) "Parliament began its negotiations in Paris" [with Americans separately from Bourbon French and Spanish], and (b) "a British-US-French-Spanish armistice was negotiated there, subsequently honored in North America among all sides, thus ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence." (Greene and Pole 2008 (2000), p. 325) - Robin misrepresented the two-step process as sourced: "Peace discussions were held in Paris, leading to the Treaty of Paris, ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence." Comments: First and foremost: This article is a military history of British subjects in their (a) insurrection, (b) rebellion, (c) constitutional "Revolution", or (d) "War of Independence", depending on various mainstream historiographic interpretations. It cannot reasonably be expanded into a diplomatic history of great European powers. when there is already a stand-alone Wikipedia article on Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War. Regarding the end of the ARW as military actions, explained to all as the scope here in the article top hat: (1) First the shooting war was stopped by truces negotiated by local British and American commanders in Yorktown and New York in 1781; (2) British offensive action in North America against Congress ended in the "American war" by Act of Parliament in April 1782; - (3) An Act of Parliament initiated peace with Congress without the Bourbon kings, leading to an Anglo-American Preliminary Peace that met all the unanimous Congressional war aims in November 1782: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi with its navigation into the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with curing rights. Congress ratified that agreement on 15 April 1783 (Library of Congress "Memory"). Euro armistice worldwide was in early 1783, followed by Euro worldwide peace in late 1783. - The end of the ARW as a military enterprise came with the end of the shooting war in North America. It was not defined by the formal "conclusive" Anglo-American peace delayed "at the pleasure of his Most Britannic Majesty". -- (An editors here observed that "shooting war" was a term unknown to him [in Euro diplomatic history?], falsely asserting the term is TVH "made up" only for the purpose of discussion here.) - That bit of European diplomatic history of various "conclusive treaties" in Versailles awaited the French April 1782 failure in the Caribbean and the Spanish October 1782 failure at Gibraltar, both engagements related to the Britain's Bourbon War (Am: Mahan 1890, Brit: Syrett 1998). They were apart from the British colonial insurrection for independence in North America, they occurred without any document evidence of participant connection to Congress or American independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (#8) Robinvp11 POV removed 'American War' opposition in Parliament, Tory and Whig posted here: (2.d) Robin, without sourcing or discussion at Talk, deleted the following account of Parliamentary opposition to continuing the 'American war', both Tory (Edward Gibbon) and Whig (William Pitt the Younger). The mood of the British nation had changed since the 1770s. Member of Parliament Edward Gibbon had believed the King's cause in America to be just, and the British and German soldiers there fought bravely. But after Yorktown, he concluded, "It is better to be humbled than ruined." There was no point in spending more money on Britain's most expensive war, with no hope of success. Whig William Pitt argued that war on American colonists had brought nothing but ineffective victories or severe defeats. He condemned effort to retain the Americans as a "most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unjust and diabolical war." Lord North resigned. George III never forgave him. (Hibbert 2000, p.161, 164). Comments: Colonial Americans did not "exceptionally" single-handedly overthrow the greatest naval power on earth and seize independence from a despotic "Mother Country". There were Opposition Whigs in Parliament at every step of the American taxation crisis and throughout the Revolutionary War. - The Patriots were grounded in Whig history, philosophy, and politics. And they were supported by British Whigs publicly in Parliament throughout the American Revolution. The British lost its second army in America at (Yorktown October 1781). The catastrophe had resulted from the Tory administration of a hard war policy that Lord North had staked his political fortunes on, so that failure allowed for the ascendency of the Whigs in Parliament (William Pitt the Younger in Commons). The "Country Gentlemen" in Commons defected from the Tories to the Whigs to oppose the "American war". These included Tories such as Mr. "it is better to be humbled than ruined" Edward Gibbon, in a seat that had been bought and paid for him through the patronage of Lord North. Parliament ended further prosecution of the "American war" in April 1782. - British patriotism reasserted itself. The Bourbon invasion of England by their (Armada September 1779) had failed a little over a year before only from the happy circumstances from bad weather combined with widespread shipboard illness and death among the invading fleet. With no further prosecution of war by Britain in America, the ranks of regular British regiments and county home-defense militias were filled, both officer and enlisted. - The deleted passage not only bears directly on the end of the American Revolutionary War, but it is also relevant to the pivot by King, Parliament and the Briton populace, to answer the direct threat of the Bourbon War on the British homeland, Caribbean, and India, apart from any subsidiary assistance that France or Spain had been forwarding to the efforts of the rebel - independence Congress among those British subjects beforehand. The passage should be restored - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (#9)(also #3, #6) Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III posted here: (3.a) Ferling source: "George III abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone. (Ferling 2007, p. 294) Robin misrepresentation: "North abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone." (Ferling 2007, p. 294) Comments: For the third time in this series, Robinvp11 inserts a POV of unsourced and undiscussed posts diminishing the role of the ruling monarch of Britain, before the onset of his later dementia, and while George III was still actively corrupting Commons seats to confer on his favorites, and adding seats in the House of Lords to guarantee his "King's Party" majorities in Parliament's votes. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC) (#10) Robinvp11 removed reference to the Second Hundred Years' War Posted here, with a rationale explaining, "You'll very rarely find any British historian who refers to the Second Hundred Years War and isn't needed anyway": (4.a) Previous text: "Beginning in 1778–9 as a part of what European historians know as the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War, France and Spain again declared war on Britain." Robin's misdirection: "Beginning in 1778–1779, France and Spain again declared war on Britain." Comments: (1) The ARW is an article on American military history. Unlike the ARW for British colonial independence in a republic the Anglo-French wars of the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815 concerned the two major European great powers vying for a favorable Balance of power on the Continent, and extending their imperial reach by colonial conquest and trade agreements (Larrie Ferreiro, Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the men of France and Spain who saved it, "British scholar Robert Seeley's name for the eight Anglo-French wars 'stuck'"). - Without reference to the British historiographic category of a Second Hundred Years' War, there is no reason to include any reference, not even tangentially, to any diplomatic or military history that is not directly related to the American Revolutionary War as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica. The on-topic material for this article must then be restricted to subject matter relating events in an insurrection of British subjects against their British government for national independence in North America for the purpose of establishing a republican government. (2) The Wikipedia military history project must adhere to a consistent editorial policy across its articles. None of the Wikipedia articles on four North American wars are written so as to comprehend the related European great power imperial wars that overlap them for some period of time. The ARW of 1775 cannot be made to do so as a one-off, stand-alone exception. - Only at the ARW have editors tried to merge not one, but two European great powers war articles into an existing American war article. The undisrupted, stand-alone American wars are to be found at 1689 King William's War, 1701 Queen Anne's War, 1739 King George's War, 1754 French and Indian War. The as yet unmerged great power wars are the 1689-1697 War of the Grand Alliance, the 1701-1714 War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Austrian Succession, or the French and Indian War. (3) One Wikipedia project should not single-handedly and inconsistently dictate that the article for the ARW of 1775 fought in North America and the North Atlantic for national independence in a republican government, should absorb sourced narrative accounts for the Anglo-French-Bourbon War of 1778 (naval history scholars Am:Mahan 1890, Brit:Styrett 1998) that was fought worldwide over the European balance of power and their respective imperial colonies. Editors there should not throw in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in the North Atlantic and Caribbean, and the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India and the Indian Ocean as add-ons. - That is especially so, since all the great power Anglo-French wars 1689-1815 are a part of the British historian Second Hundred Years' War, which as a stand-alone artic'e itself needs expanding at Wikipedia to become "comprehensive", were editors there be so inclined. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC) (#11) to be completed (-) to be completed. Comments: to be completed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall results

I wonder if editors could comment on how we describe the overall results.

To me, colonial America was controlled by the British government, but had a great degree of internal self-government. While not a democracy, the colonial governments relied on local elites for support. They lost this however after the British parliament imposed "intolerable" legislation and sent colonial officials to impose imperial legislation. Many colonists, from all ranks of society, remained loyal to Britain and some 80,000 "loyalists" left the colonies after independence.

The distinguished historian Gordon S. Wood saw colonial America as a stratified society that would change into an egalitarian society as a result of the revolution.

Gwillhickers sees colonial America as a semi-feudal state with lords and ladies and personally controlled by the King of Great Britain. A class of colonial officials from England formed the upper class, but left following the ARW.

I don't know how accepted Wood's view is, but I see no support for Gwillhickers' view in reliable sources.

For the overall results section,[5] we need to distinguish the degree of support various views have. It reflects Gwillhickers' view and uses Wood as a source. I think that Wood's view is misinterpreted and is in any case a minority view.

TFD (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Just generally,

(a) I am reluctant to spend narrative space in extended discussion of historiography on any aspect of the article topic, except in a very few summary sentences in a final end-of-article "Legacy and commemoration" section.

(b) The wholesale import of a political section from another Wikipedia article at American Revolution into the military article is (i) mirroring another article, a practice that is deprecated in Wikipedia policy -----, and (ii) off topic. The article top hat reads, This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution.

(c) The imported POV (I'm not sure that Gwillhickers should embrace it in a wiki-fencing match here) in the once named "overall results" section, mis-characterized American colonial society as "feudal" when that term of historiography has only a limited application to the colonial Tidewater Atlantic seaboard of the Chesapeake Bay, south (and the British Caribbean).

(d) I propose, the following language, supported by RS footnotes, below. :Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed 'Legacy' section

Political legacy

The American Revolution established the United States and set an example to overthrow government by monarchy and imperial colonialism. The new republic spanned a large territory, justified to the world by Enlightenment ideals with widespread political participation. That participation was further expanded by land grants made to Continental and militia veterans. The French, Haitian, Latin American Revolutions were inspired in part by the American Revolution, as were others into the modern era.

In their home states, returning veterans sought to expand the voting franchise to include all those who had served in the American Revolutionary War, and to embrace all those who enrolled in their county militias from ages 21 to 60. During the elections for delegates to state conventions to ratify the US Constitution in 1788, that goal was attained in Virginia for that one election only. Most states did not expand the franchise to militia members regardless of property holdings until after the War of 1812 and later at the rise of Jacksonian democracy.

Returning veteran settlement included a variety of backgrounds. Enlisted men, several hundreds of whites and a few dozen free blacks, received land grants from Congress or their home states to settle on family farms on the western frontier, and thereby met the land requirement to vote. Germans who had fought for the British returned with their families to settle on the frontier, achieving citizenship within one year for their adopted states, before US citizenship. "Soft" Tories, the two-thirds of Loyalist militias who did not migrate to British colonies in Canada and the Caribbean, either made a home among their former neighbors, or migrated west to the western frontier.

Social legacy

The Enlightenment reasoning to abolish slavery was widespread among Revolutionary war veterans. They had seen black troops perform well under fire both in state militias and in Continental Line regiments. At the close of the war, Revolutionary officers North and South, supported freedom and land grants to all surviving black veterans, regardless of their previous condition of servitude, but they were outvoted in their state legislatures. Large numbers of enlisted veterans south and west of the Tidewater joined Methodist and Baptist religious sects that were racially integrated, admitting both free black and enslaved membership.

Revolutionary veterans made up majorities in the state legislatures that took actions to free slaves. By 1804, all the northern states had soon passed laws outlawing slavery. George Washington, personally manumitted his slaves and did so through his will without an Act of Assembly. Veteran majorities in both House and Senate passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves went into effect in 1808. John Marshall helped found the American Colonization Society, a manumission society to establish an African nation of self-governing freed slaves.

Washington's Continental officer corps, including Naval officers and French officers with Congressional commissions, founded a brotherhood of the Society of the Cincinnati to care for their fellow officer's widows, orphans, and one another in old age. In the early 1800s, state chapters with strong republican principles such as Virginia, self-dissolved the hereditary organization as the last widow of the Revolution's serving officers died. Later these chapters were reconstituted to memorialize their ancestors' service to the republic, and generally promote American patriotism.

Memory legacy

- a balanced discussion of mainstream historiography

Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC);

- updated.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Very well done – perhaps too well.  We've gone from an existing section of 1513 characters / 227 words, to a proposed section of 4266 characters / 644 words - a threefold increase. I would omit the details about Patrick Henry's and Washington's relationship with the Society and other details quoted below:

• ... including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803.
• Despite fears of Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry of Virginia militia service in the Revolutionary War, George Washington did not orchestrate Cincinnati membership as a cabal to impose a national government on the United States. While he did encourage his former officers such as John Marshall to run for delegate in the Virginia Ratification Convention, Society members who were elected from their home counties split 50-50 over the final vote to ratify.
• ...including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803.
  PS, how do I get rid of all this underlining in my reply? I tried using the </u> but it's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I got rid of all of them; just a friendly note to TheVirginiaHistorian to remember to close their <u> tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. sorry. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• It covers exclusively the legacy within the United States. It does not cover the Rise of the "Second" British Empire (1783–1815) and how the Revolution changed the fate of Australia. Our article on the British Empire covers the changes:
• "Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic. Forced to find an alternative location after the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783, the British government turned to Australia. The coast of Australia had been discovered for Europeans by the Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon in 1606 and was named New Holland by the Dutch East India Company, but there was no attempt to colonise it. In 1770 James Cook charted the eastern coast of Australia while on a scientific voyage to the South Pacific Ocean, claimed the continent for Britain, and named it New South Wales. In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook's botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement, and in 1787 the first shipment of convicts set sail, arriving in 1788. Britain continued to transport convicts to New South Wales until 1840, to Tasmania until 1853 and to Western Australia until 1868." Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick has made a remarkably clear expression of one aspect of the 'worldwide ARW', as we have discussed at some length on this page. Its sweep is comparable to our assistant professor at the University of Alabama, a Dr. Lockwood, who writes in his book, "the imperial American Revolution spread worldwide" (Lockwood 2019). Widely acknowledged as a masterful storyteller, Lockwood shows examples of the economic ruin among Andes Indios and Australian aboriginals that occurred in his view as a direct result of the untoward effects rippling out from the worldwide economic disruption by the War of American Independence. While most serious scholars gave the effort little notice, one scholarly journal that did review the book observed that Lockwood had connected dots where there were no connections.

In short, the scope of an article primarily devoted to the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War that established a struggling republic unable to subdue the disparate westerly Indian tribes of its own interior for over fifty years, did not establish of the Second British Empire, never mind did it have a reach to effect the outcomes of British colonization in Australia into the Victorian Era.

To place our editor query in some historical context, we should ask ourselves, Which RS cites correspondence in George Washington's published papers, either as General of the American armies, or as President of the United States, addressing Queen Victoria on this topic, considering Australia as a British penal colony? --- Now, I will concede that it is of some note that a dozen or so Irishmen banished by Queen Victoria for risings in Ireland, later achieved the rank of Brigadier General during the American Civil War on the Union side for liberty, the republic and democracy. But I do not want that included in the 'Legacy' section of the ARW, whatever the intriguing connection may be.

Let's put a chronological limit on the 'Legacy' horizon at Thomas Jefferson's Inauguration for his first term as President: the "Revolutionary Era", the "Constitutional Era", and the "Federalist Era" of American history, April 1775 - March 1801? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, this is a great idea. I fully support this. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A welcome for Robin copyedits for encyclopedic summary style

In view of the good copyediting by Robinvp11 – in a summary encyclopedic style – first of my contributions on African American participation here, then just now, his two most recent in Early engagements here, and here, I look forward to his further contributions as a writer.

I still maintain a substantial disagreement against his imposition of off-topic European diplomatic history into this American military history, and his method of imposing it, undiscussed and unsourced. His POV is contrary to mainstream interpretation of the ARW in the unimpeached gold standard for scholarly reference in the English language, the Encyclopedia Britannica.

- The American Revolutionary War was an insurrection within the British Empire between British subjects over (a) colonial political independence and (b) their constitutional revolution from monarchy to republic --- for an American self-governing people separate from those in Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Issues of mass deletions, resolved

Mass deletions, undiscussed, proving disruptive (This is a reply to a ping that was made here.) @Tenryuu: — Yes, some of the wholesale deletions also resulted in citation errors. This occurs when a defined 'ref=' statement is removed. The first time a mass deletion occurred, with no discussion, two editors took exception, here on the Talk page. Then just recently, yet another mass deletion occurred by the same editor, again with no discussion, and with one coverall statement about General Gage in edit history, which hardly explains the bulk of the text removal. Perhaps we should revert the article back to here (Nov.25), just before the last mass deletion, and take it from there, with all editors, including yourself, cooporating and dealing with individual issues one at a time, as we were doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: For the immediate future, I have asked Tenryuu to make an exception here to the usual work flow. Instead of working through the entire article as a whole, I've asked for a piecemeal treatment of the three remaining stable sections: #Revolution as civil war, #Aftermath , and #Commemorations of the Revolutionary War. ASK of our fellow editors: Until the "under construction" notice is removed from the top of the page, please do not revert Tenryuu's copyedited sections. Any revert such as proposed above should be explained at the revert of the disrupting post with a reference to this section, and an additional informational note of how we are collegially proceeding on this page posted directly to the disrupting editor's Talk. @Robinvp11: At the Talk:American Revolutionary War section #Copyedit request, each section that is has been copyedited in an agreed upon comprehensive review has its own subsection. Immediately below each "resolved" collapsed box, there is an opportunity for interested editors to note any additional interests and concerns for each section in the dedicated sub-section titled "Pending". In the most recently disrupted article main-space disrupted, that is found for the American Revolutionary War#Strategy and commanders section here. You are collegially invited to participate in this two-week long on-going process, as noted for you in the large box at the top of the article for your information and use at the article Talk page. Thank you for your patience and cooperation for this limited time. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers, I've posted the informational notice to the Military history Project 'status review' page under the ARW section, at Robins Talk, and made an update at Tenryuu Talk, noting my restoring the "under construction box", the informational posts, and my ask that the copyedit process be continued at the three stable sections, while we await cooperation or forbearance from Robin for the limited time remaining to complete the Tenryuu comprehensive review. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Gwillhickers At my ARW article page edit here, I moved the previous 'under construction template' to the section under edit review, ‘Strategy and commanders’. - Using the parameters described at Template:Under construction, I edited the template to post this:

Tenryuu, As Robin has acknowledged at the section I posted on his Talk, “Happy to stop,” he in wp:good faith did not understand the global copyedit sequencing workflow you were attempting to accomplish, I hope you can reconsider, and take one section under review at a time.

- Perhaps using this format going forward, you might initiate a new copyedit review, leap-frogging forward to the ‘Aftermath’ then ‘Commemorations in the Revolutionary War’ sections, using the Under Construction template parameters for each section as you tackle it. And Gwillhickers and I can "worry that bone" [meaning #2] back at the 'Strategy and commanders' section? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your words of conciliation and excellent efforts at diplomacy. Glad to see this didn't escalate into a Talk page battle and edit war. — Humbly we go forth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary editors (Gwillhickers—TheVirginiaHistorian—Robinvp11), I can start looking at the three aforementioned sections ("Revolution as civil war", "Aftermath", and "Commemorations of the Revolutionary War") tomorrow, so long as everyone is okay with the current text and its future revisions. Please try and discuss other contentious prose in the relevant sections elsewhere here on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Onward and upward! - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• The edits are not intended to be disruptive and I've tried to avoid major sections, so apologies if that has been the case. This is a big article and it doesn't need to be.

There are three reasons for this; (a) a lot of repetition (I take the point you can't always say "Its been covered elsewhere" but how many times do we need to mention Dunmore's proclamation, Saratoga etc) (b) its over-written (eg often using 10 words where five will do) and (c) I've mentioned this before but I've never seen so many footnotes in one article; they look like attempts to do an end run around the size parameters by adopting Enron accounting techniques :). That causes two problems; it removes the need to be concise and often leaves out stuff that should be in the article.

INSERT: see Gwillickers * thread below - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A personal 'aaarrrrgh;" :) I know the Declaration of Independence refers to George III (because the drafters wanted to avoid a fight with Parliament) but Britain fought a series of bloody civil wars to establish the fact Parliament made decisions, not the king (one of my own ancestors signed the death warrant for Charles I). So every time I see 'George III decided/negotiated etc' it shows a lack of understanding of the British political system and how decisions were made; he was a Tory country gentleman of limited intelligence who ultimately did what he was told by his ministers - the only exception to that was Catholic emancipation. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Robin — If the King functioned little more than as a figurehead, then we should say so if the sources say so. However, at least according to Thomas Paine's Common Sense, a very influential work in both the American and French revolutions, which criticized both Parliament and the King, the King was indeed allowed a good measure of authority: The passage in question reads:

"But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check
the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check
the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; ..."

Having only a basic knowledge of the relationship between the King and Parliament during the ARW, I will leave such matters to those more familiar with the topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the last time a monarch withheld royal assent was in the case of the Scottish Militia Bill of 1708, upon the request of her ministers, i.e., the cabinet. There is an ongoing debate over whether the Queen has the right to veto legislation at the request of the PM, but she has no right to do so on her own initiative. Cabinet also has the power to give royal assent if the king is unwilling or unable to do so or for any reason whatsoever. TFD (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

George III and his ARW role

As I chipped in somewhere in the discussion above, it seems that even George himself saw his role as that of agent for the authority of Parliament ("fighting the battle of the Legislature" as he wrote).

He may have periodically expressed strong opinions, but these shouldn't be taken as evidence of a strong influence on policy.Svejk74 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial policy and process in this example can be treated in four steps.

Review the literature.

(a) English gold standard scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica. The [George III George III - North ministry article is written by British scholar John Steven Watson, The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960). (1) By 1770, George III was "still as obstinate as ever and still felt an intense duty to guide the country" […] he "used executive power for winning elections […]" (2) "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." And, “North wearily [publicly] repeated his wish to resign, thus appearing to be a mere puppet of George III. " George III insisted, and so North stayed on until the week of a “no confidence” vote in Commons, when the King relented but still fuming, “I’ll never forget this [personal betrayal].” (3) At the time people believed that corruption alone supported an administration that was equally incapable of waging war or ending it. This supposed increase in corruption was laid directly at the king’s door. (4) At backing William Pitt the Younger in the general election March 1784, the country, moved by reform sentiment," as well as by treasury influence, overwhelmingly endorsed the king’s action.” George III subsequently withdrew from direct intervention in Parliament, allowing Pitt’s administration over His Majesty's objections, after the American Revolutionary War.

(b) The Hibbert biography sourced in the ARW article, linked and quoted above here at Talk.

(c) H.T. Dickenson in Britain and the American Revolution (Routledge 2016 [2014) writes, “A visceral hostility to ‘unnatural rebellion’ seems to have gripped some British politicians, together with a belief that the Americans – and their British friends and abettors – were engaged in a deeply laid plot to destroy the balance of the constitution by undermining executive authority and creating an unchecked ‘democracy’.

Note: From a perspective of British legal history, (Maitland et alia) the Americans looked to their English Stuart King colonial charters that guaranteed them the "rights of Englishmen as though they lived in England". George III, tutored by Bute, believed the colonies akin to his German family provinces in Bruswick. Legally the colonials were seen by George III as living on his personal domain, like peasants on his lands in Sherwood Forest, and he could change the boundaries of their cottages and fields at will; residents there were to him as his HRE serfs, and he could also change their local constitutions at will. Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic took objection.

(d) The Anglican Bishop, Stephen Conway contributed a chapter in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives 1 view of 9 scholars who do not have a George III monograph of their own: Bishop Conway writes: George III was blamed "[...] with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king [...] was consulted on the conduct of the war and [...] he gave his opinions freely [...]; but he was not the key decision-maker [...]". To uphold the editorial theme here, that "There no great men in history", Svejk74 posts above at Talk: "George certainly played a role, but it shouldn't be overemphasised at the expense of, for example, the cabinet generally." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A few points. First, splitting my comment above off under its own heading in isolation from the comment I was responding to makes it near-impossible for me to follow the thread of the conversation, let alone anyone else.

Second - you state "The Anglican Bishop, Stephen Conway contributed a chapter in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives 1 view of 9 scholars who do not have a George III monograph of their own". Conway is a history professor at UCL, not a bishop, and an 18th century specialist with an interest in George III's reign. Not sure what the "Bishop Conway" and "no George III monograph" stuff is about other than an attempt to deprecate my source? It's certainly more representative of modern scholarship than Watson's 70 year old text.

Thirdly this is not about a 'theme' of "There are no great men in history" but about the fact that George's power was limited by the Parliamentary system, and that neither descriptions of his personal opinion or of the popular perception of his role particularly alter that.Svejk74 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Svejk74: Apologies to Dr. Conway. -- The FIRST thread was on disruptive deletions. Your SECOND thread deserved the new section: George III and his ARW role. It goes well for your reputation as a wp:editor that it was near-impossible for me to follow the thread connecting the two, as there is objectively no connection there between (a) disruptive edits in the article, and (b) your stated interest in George III and his political role in the ARW.

Our colleague editors who clutch to the abstract notion that, "There can be no 'great men or women' in history.", are also fond of alluding to a secret "reality" in the events of history that are "facts" existing apart from the actual participants, and further, as Svejk74 so eloquently puts it, "neither descriptions of his [the participant's] personal opinion or of the popular perception of his role [as seen by event witnesses], i.e., evidence from among those living and acting at the time, can particularly alter that. That is, there is nothing from the past that can be brought into a discussion of the secret no-great-men-or-women "facts". That preconceived editorial "reality" can never be "particularly altered" by any well-sourced accounts to the contrary from history.

Here Svejk74 promotes an unsourced POV with the novel assertion that George III was figurehead in 1782-1783 as he was "limited by the Parliamentary system". But that system, before the King's voluntary withdrawal from active intervention and control of Parliament (a) allowed George III to appoint Lords to manufacture the King's majority there, (b) used rotten boroughs that never seated a member of his Loyal Opposition, and (c) his "Treasury" paid for seats in Commons. George III relented actively pressuring Parliament following his thumb-on-the-scales to seat Rockingham PM (Dr. John Steven Watson in Britannica).

- Those familiar with British constitutional history and government are aware of significant differences among Crown and Parliament and their shared powers from first, William and Mary to George III, transition at George III, and second, George III to Elizabeth II, of whom you speak as a figurehead. No "18th century specialist with an interest in George III's reign" fails to note the difference, a Dr. Conway does not say there was no change in the British constitution over that 260-year time span, you have no quote from him to say so. Svejk74 just made up their own POV and misrepresented poor Dr. Conway who is without a prominent author's page online at a browser search. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm perfectly familiar with British (and Irish) constitutional history, thanks, especially the period between 1640 and 1800 or so.

It's important to understand the ways in which the historiography of the reign of George III has changed substantially over the years. 19th century 'Whig' historians presented him as a meddler who made a concerted effort to reassert the power of the Crown, partly by comparing him with his supposedly 'inactive' predecessor George II. This 'averted slide towards tyranny' narrative has long been superseded. Namier, writing in the early 20th century, demonstrated that most of the assumptions about party divisions made by 19th century historians were wrong; the situation was far more fluid and parliamentarians far more independent-minded. It's also since been argued that George II was not the indolent figure he was once presented as, and that the balance of power between Crown and Parliament was in fact relatively consistent throughout the period. We can now understand that 19th century historiography is best regarded as a product of its time.

I fail to see how I am misrepresenting the views of (Professor, not Dr) Conway when I quoted directly from him as follows: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". That seems to me completely clear. I did not say George was a "figurehead" (that's your term); I said that his power was limited. He is best regarded as one of a set of competing influences on the war's conduct - this is not a "novel POV". We were asked, on the Military History pages, to contribute to the discussion on ongoing edits and this is precisely why I think @Robinvp11:'s recent edits are a big improvement: they remove overemphasis of the monarch's active role in the conflict.Svejk74 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Re the discussion above by TheVirginiaHistorian, the point of the 'great man' stuff escapes me, but this is not how the late 18th century British constitutional system worked. The suggestion "George III was a figurehead in 1782-1783" and "limited by the Parliamentary system" simply reflects mainstream modern historiography.

As the first English-born Hanoverian, George was more Tory than the Tories, (North was the first nominally Tory PM since 1710, with the odd exception) and was routinely attacked by the Whigs for allegedly favouring them (hence the criticism he receives from 19th century Whig historians like Macaulay).

George III did not own any boroughs, rotten or otherwise; individual aristocrats did (the History of Parliament provides details of exactly who owned which if you're curious). The idea he could create peers when needed is simply wrong, as is the suggestion he controlled the Whig-dominated Lords;

Like any 18th century aristocrat, he had powers of patronage but the vast bulk were vested in the Treasury, which was controlled by the government. In fact, on becoming king he signed over the Crown Estates in return for a civil list annuity granted by Parliament, while MPs were specifically banned from holding 'offices of profit under the Crown'; it survives today in the legal fiction known as taking the Chiltern Hundreds.

If you lost a motion of confidence (as North did), the government resigned and a new one was created, which then controlled these powers (this system survives in the modern US, where the number of political and/or administrative positions filled by the President are way, way, way more substantial than those available to Boris Johnson).

Like other Tories, he didn't want to be responsible for losing what was seen by both colonists and Parliament as an integral part of Britain; once France and Spain entered the war, it also became a matter of national prestige. As king, he felt it more but his influence was largely confined to saying "No". He did not direct government policy and when North lost a majority in the House, he resigned regardless of what George wanted. That's the point. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would note also that the language of the Declaration of Independence and other documents seems to view George III as very powerful. But it has to be read in context of the constitutional theory that the Founding Fathers held, for example as expressed by John Adams in Novanglus. The American colonies were founded in the early 1600s when the king was extremely powerful. Following the 1688 Revolution, most of his powers were transferred to the English Parliament. However, the colonial view was that the English Parliament had no jurisdiction in America, instead it was colonial legislatures. By "comb[ing] with others," i.e., the English parliament, the king had broken his personal obligation to his American subjects. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for the reasonable and well grounded response. I would add that the Stuart charters meant to attract large scale immigration to overmatch Spanish and French colonization in the New World, well that was the aspiration. That became the bedrock of colonial resistance to George III re-conception of British North America. The N.Am. colonists believed that they and their posterity would have "all the rights of Englishmen as though they still resided there." I do not intend any of the following to be directed towards you. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How does this address the points made at some length by myself and Svejk74? No one's disputed the Stuart Charters or how the colonials viewed themselves, this is a discussion about the role of George III. There are still numerous examples of this confusion in the article - I'm happy to correct them, but its hard to tell from this if you disagree. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My point was that the language of the Founding Fathers made it appear that George III was an absolute monarch. ("The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.") That view has entered the collective memory. In reality, George was constrained by Parliament and we need to accurately reflect his actual role in the ARW. TFD (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It would seem we can all agree that both the King and Parliament had a given measure of authority. Given the biased historiography of both Whig and Tory minded historians, debating the rather subjective idea of 'how much' authority King George wielded has proven to be a never ending debate, as has been demonstrated in this discussion. It would be best to simply outline the statements in question, here in Talk, currently found in the article, and address them on a per statement basis. Remembering that this is the 'war' article, we are not going to be covering the relationship and roles of the King and Parliament that much to begin with. I think we can also agree that the King and Parliament shared authority, and we should leave it at that. Statements involving the King and Parliament should be confined to terms involving established facts. If the sources in question are somewhat conflicting, we simply say so in neutral terms. It was my impression that, for most, if not all of, the war, both the King and Parliament were on the same page up until the surrender at Yorktown, where the Parliament became somewhat divided as to whether the war should be continued. Can anyone outline the actual statements in question that need attention in that regard here in Talk? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:  Robinvp11 and Svejk74 are manifestly unfamiliar with British-American constitutional and military history in the last half of the 1700s. One says (a) no reputable scholar claims George III was a “figurehead” in making military decisions in the ARW (my word alone it is said, for monarchs who defer to their minister's and their cabinets in all things but ribbon color and wig perfume), while the other maintains (b) as to making military decisions in the ARWm, "'George III was a figurehead in 1782-1783' and 'limited by the Parliamentary system' simply reflects mainstream modern historiography".

- They both ignore my posts, direct quotes and RS links provided for editor inspection. There is no counter to my posts, only both say the referenced RS are not so, on their own wp:editor authority alone, without any scholarly authority to back them up. - We do have the sidebar about the one as-yet-to-be-confirmed "professor" without a doctorate - hmmmmmm, by 1980 Virginia community colleges did not allow instructors to be even temporary adjuncts without a doctorate from an accredited university, never mind their more stringent qualifications for tenured professors. We have a 'smell test' yet to pass here.

But I’ve sourced from THE mainstream scholarly reference in the English language for the 20th and 21st century, Encyclopedia Britannica. --- In this case, for Britannica’s article on George III here, the historiography is originally authored by American scholar updated on 31 May 2020. It is directly quoted for editors here in this thread above. Britannica’s current (31 May 2020) scholarly authority is not overturned on a Talk thread by blind assertion using wp:bully attacks.

My second reliable source views the American Patriots as undermining EXECUTIVE (Crown) constitutional authority --- the directly quoted and linked from British scholar Harry Thomas Dickenson in his 2016 edition of Britain in the American Revolution. These RS and their international standing in English-language 21st century scholarship by both an American (updated 2020) and a Briton (2016) is not yet impeached on this page. They are not likely to be.

The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only characterizations that are carefully drawn from reliable sources, now directly quoted and linked for editor inspection. Wikipedia asks of its editors on the Military History pages to enter into discussion with reliable sources and goodwill, not article disruption with coordinated empty denials and rhetorical rabbit trails on its Talk. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to try and be as concise as possible here, for the benefit of everyone involved. You start by saying we've not addressed the quotes provided by you, so I'll deal with that first.

In support of your argument for George III's significance, you've cited a quote "A visceral hostility to ‘unnatural rebellion’ seems to have gripped some British politicians, together with a belief that the Americans – and their British friends and abettors – were engaged in a deeply laid plot to destroy the balance of the constitution by undermining executive authority and creating an unchecked ‘democracy". Firstly, this says nothing about George; it's talking about the attitude of "some British politicians" to what they saw as an attempt to undermine the government. If you actually read Britain and the American Revolution, the book this is taken from, you'll also note this is not written by Dickinson (the editor) but from a chapter by Stephen Conway, the academic who elsewhere in the same book writes "Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed".

You also offer a series of quotes from the Britannica entry on North's ministry. Several of these say little about George's actual influence, only that he, for example "still felt an intense duty to guide the country", or that he was blamed for a "supposed increase in corruption". We know George had strong opinions and was not afraid to air them; the issue is that whatever his opinions, sense of duty, or efforts to interfere with government, his capacity to actually do so was limited.

To back this up I've offered, originally in this edit, what I thought was a reasonably balanced modern perspective given by Stephen Conway (in Britain and the American Revolution). I'm not sure why or how I've become sidetracked into a question of his academic credentials, but here he is: his major publications may be of interest.

For the avoidance of doubt, here's what he writes, again: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". I think this is a crystal clear statement, from a reliable source, of how power was exercised.Svejk74 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping the rhetorical device of denying my 21st century sourcing as 19th century Whig propaganda. We may be getting somewhere to collegially arrive at consensus. Let's explore Introduction, p.9

(1) "The King's role was less than has been assumed", is of course Dr. Conway's reference -- why would you contentiously contradict me by saying Conway, the PhD, is not qualified to the title, "Doctor" knowing full well otherwise? ah! it must be like my Brit TV detective mystery binge watching, "playing at silly buggers" with me. It was silly of me to take offense. LOL sorry, apologies -- start over.

(1) Perhaps, "The King's role was less than has been assumed", is Conway's reference to those who would make George III out to be a Frederick the Great -- Straw man alert -- but George III is NOT put forward as an example of the European Enlightenment "Absolute Monarch" anywhere in the article. The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only characterizations that are carefully drawn from reliable sources, now directly quoted and linked for editor inspection.

(2) The reference may also be to the passage on page 347, Britain in the late 1700s, was like that of 1793-1815, "[...] a weak British state, dependent upon a great number and variety of interests beyond its control, even for the organization of national defense." --- This comparative weakness in Britain during "the last war of the ancien regime" as Conway quoted elsewhere, is a characterization of the state compared to that of the nation-state developed in WWI. It is NOT Conway's characterization of the role that George III played in military affairs within that regime during the ARW. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: We may be getting somewhere to collegially arrive at consensus. Bollocks to that, you need to start by apologising for a series of snide and condescending comments, culminating in this completely gratuitous and unfounded insult "Robinvp11 and Svejk74 are manifestly unfamiliar with British-American constitutional and military history in the last half of the 1700s." Let me be honest in return.

I don't make a big deal of it but I have a degree and a PHD in history, specialising in late 18th century/early 19th century Europe. One of my tutors was John Ramsden, whose focus was the development of party in post 1760-Britain; I also studied the American War in the army, as my regiment was a direct successor of the Royal Americans (the British treasure their defeats more than their victories). So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. If you care. Which I don't. What about you?

Its not always easy to answer your points because (like much of the article) the prose is often so dense and convoluted its hard to figure what they are. I still have zero idea what the 'great man' stuff is about, but I answered each of the others in specific detail. Which you've ignored, then complained they haven't been answered - which seems like a 'heads I win, tails you lose' approach.

You have fundamentally confused the nature of executive power in the colonies (which was vested in the Crown, ruling through governors) and who exercised it - not George III but the Crown, as expressed by the British government. Why that is so hard to understand escapes me.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

George III and his ARW role - continued

Yes, if there are any statements that are deemed to be over-emphasizing the King's role, we need to see them outlined, here in Talk. Otherwise we'll forever be absorbed in another lengthy source debate, which would be uncalled for since the article only mentions the King briefly, esp in relation to Parliament. The debate is somewhat out of proportion to the amount of coverage our article lends to these entities.

Below are the five statements in the narrative, with citations, that cover King George in terms of the war effort and its aftermath. If there are any issues here they need to be addressed specifically.

• Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in an attempt to prevent war. King George III rejected the offer as insincere." <Ferling, 2006, pp. 38, 113>

• "Tories stiffened their resistance to compromise, and George III himself began micromanaging the war effort." <Ferling 2003, pp. 123–124> <O'Shaughnessy, 2013, p. 186>

• "In London, news of the victorious Long Island campaign was well received with festivities held in the capital. Public support reached a peak,<McCullough 2005, p. 195> and King George III awarded the Order of the Bath to Howe." <Ketchum 2014, pp. 191, 269>

• "Meanwhile, George III had given up on subduing America while Britain had a European war to fight." <Ferling 2007, p. 294>

• "Despite these developments, George III was determined to never recognize American independence and to indefinitely wage war on the American colonies indefinitely until they pleaded to return as his subjects." <Trevelyan 1912a, pp. 4–5>
  

If any of these statements are inaccurate or completely in error, we need to see the sources that supports that idea in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The first mention of George III is in the lead: "King George III promised American independence and Anglo–American talks began. The preliminary articles of peace signed in November, and in December 1782, George III spoke from the British throne for US independence, trade, and peace between the two countries." I would replace George III with the British government. The King was forced to appoint a pro-peace ministry and accept their "advice." (Although it is called advice, the sovereign is obligated to follow it.) TFD (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It was King George who made the promise, but I think we can assume he had the backing of the Parliament. It was the King who was addressed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and like the President of the U.S. would, he spoke on behalf of his country. It would seem King George was more than just an empty suit with a crown on his head and had an appreciable amount of influence with the Parliament. For purposes of the lede, it seems mention of the King is most appropriate. I've no issues, however, with clarifying any other statements in the body of the text, where warranted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In the UK and other Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia and their provinces and states, the Queen or her representative reads a speech from the throne every year written by the PM, explaining the government's agenda, and she or her representatives approve all legislation, issue all executive orders and declare war. Every government promise is made in the name of the Queen. Do you think that the queen personally develops government policies in all those places? Is it just a coincidence that when government changes hands, so does the policy that Her Majesty follows? TFD (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The source for the sentence beginning "Even after fighting began" merely says that the king refused to read the petition. Adams wrote, "My hopes are that Ministry will be afraid of negotiation as well as we and therefore refuse it." Notice he was referring to the British government rather than the king. They would decide what response if any would be made. TFD (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

TFD again, the second post is a reasonable on your part, but it is not a summary statement of the King's overall military role in the ARW 1775-1783. It is only his tactical comment on a narrow political maneuver in John Adams' prayerful assessment of one of the several other-than-George III "levers" of government.

That much is of course conceded. But that ancillary consideration is not the overall assessment of the King's power to direct a British military effort to retain the rebelling colonies, as sourced. If the King did not respond and reconcile --- as was done at the First Rockingham Administration withdrawing the Stamp Act --- then the casus belli is removed for widespread Atlantic seaboard colonial rebellion, constitutional revolution, and national independence in a republic -- John Adams's personal goal, as a "great figure of history".

A Ministry frozen in place into George III's stubborn policy of denial could possibly result in the conditions for a spread of military confrontation against Royal Governors outside of New England. (For another take on a related political process, reference Lenin and the Reds trying to gain support outside center-metropolis cities. Were the Czar to have had actually learned and spoken in the Russian language to the surrounding population ... better for the Revolution that the monarch be stubbornly in control, without a clue from his Ministers.)

Unfortunately, the first post above is another allusion to the 21st century British constitution of Queen Elizabeth II. As such it is not applicable to the ARW period of British-American colonial relations, an anachronism, and bad history. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the Stamp Act was repealed by Parliament in a vote of 276-168. The legislation was originated by Rockingham not by the king. It received royal assent as did every other law passed by parliament during George's 60 year reign. The king had no power to withhold royal assent without the "advice" of cabinet. Cabinet had the power to provide royal assent if the king was unable or unwilling to do so in person, which actually did happen during his illnesses. It's quite a stretch to compare the British constitution with pre-revolutionary Russia. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the language used refers to the king. Laws are passed by the King-in-Parliament, executive orders are passed by the King-in-Council, judgments were made by the King on the advice of the Board of Trade, the king is the Commander-in-Chief. That is because historically the king had absolute power which later devolved to constitutional institutions such as parliament, the cabinet, and the supreme court following the revolution of 1688. While Adams did not recognize the authority of any of these institutions in America, he was aware that was how British government worked. TFD (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That may well as may be, passing a law in Britain during the reign of George III was not by monarch fiat. That much can be stipulated. However, the sausage-making of parliamentary legislation is not related to the article's sourced characterization of George III significant role in military affairs during the ARW.

LOL, my long-time friend. The comparison is meant to be this, and only in this limited way, as an ancillary, illustrative aside: Adams is to Monarch (clueless un-reforming ruler is good for Revolution) -- is as -- Lenin is to Tsar (clueless un-reforming ruler is good for Revolution). Hope you are in good health. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

While we don't have to know or explain the English constitution, we need to be precise when we attribute actions of its governments. We shouldn't say for example that George III enacted and repealed the Stamp Act when it was the imperial parliament. Or that he rejected the Olive Branch Petition if it was the cabinet. We wouldn't say today for example that Elizabeth II closed the Canadian border to the U.S., or took the UK out of the EU, or sent troops to Iraq. While George III exercised far more political influence than Elizabeth II, the view that he was an absolute monarch is a myth. TFD (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• "indefinitely wage war on the American colonies indefinitely" The sentence repeats "indefinetely" twice, when only one instance is needed. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the first post above is another allusion to the 21st century British constitution of Queen Elizabeth II. As such it is not applicable to the ARW period of British-American colonial relations" The main article on George III mentions his role in a "constitutional struggle" in 1783, and the king directly causing the fall of the Fox–North coalition.:

• "Immediately after the House of Commons passed it [the India Bill], George authorised Lord Temple to inform the House of Lords that he would regard any peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. The bill was rejected by the Lords; three days later, the Portland ministry was dismissed, and William Pitt the Younger was appointed Prime Minister, with Temple as his Secretary of State. On 17 December 1783, Parliament voted in favour of a motion condemning the influence of the monarch in parliamentary voting as a "high crime" and Temple was forced to resign. Temple's departure destabilised the government, and three months later the government lost its majority and Parliament was dissolved; the subsequent election gave Pitt a firm mandate." Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. (1) This is another anachronistic, bad history allusion to British constitutional history after the ARW, and (2) it bears on post-war India Bill legislation procedure, not on the George III military role in the ARW as monarch.

(3) As noted before, after the personal humiliation losing the American colonies, George III withdrew from his former extensive interference in Parliament while influencing the course of his "American war". As you note, not all at once but first from the House of Commons, then from the House of Lords. His miscalculation leading up the the 17 December 1783 motion in the House of Lords meant that he was used to, and confident in, his right to dictate outcomes in the House of Lords, even after the revolt of the "country gentlemen" in the House of Commons.

Note: this event takes place over a year after the Paris signing of the Anglo-American Prelimary Peace in November 1782, granting the US independence, British withdrawal, territory west to the Mississippi with free navigation to the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with beach curing rights. Congress ratified it unanimously on 15 April 1783, and it resolved a Proclamation "End of hostilities" between the US and Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in an attempt to prevent war. King George III rejected the offer as insincere." <Ferling, 2006, pp. 38, 113>

(1) Page numbers provided for Ferling do not tie in; (2) British intelligence intercepted a letter from Adams deriding the offer, which they took as indication of lack of sincerity; (3) the government had already prepared the Proclamation of Rebellion and did not present the petition to George. I have updated this accordingly.

Re the 18th century British constitution; just because George read speeches does not mean he wrote them (this continues today when the Queen addresses Parliament and talks of 'my government.') He often wrote letters to North supporting a policy - that does not mean he made it. Yes, he had more power than in modern day Britain, and a greater willingness to exert it - but he did not make policy. In the end, he did what his government wanted. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Article size

• Needless redundancy aside, I am from the school of thought where the more context an article can offer the better, and strongly oppose the idea of removing content simply to get a prose size 'number' down. This is not the way to write. Some encyclopedias devote several dozen pages to important/famous subjects. While there are dedicated articles for virtually every topic on the ARW, this is the main article, a high-traffic article, and the only WP article that comes up in google searches for the ARW, and as such should have a healthy amount of content overlap with sister articles. This way, when readers chose to jump to another article they are already primed to delve further into the given topic. The readers really shouldn't be forced to jump to a dozen+ different articles just to get a comprehensive idea of the ARW. If this approach results in an article with one toe over the line then so be it – page size 'guidelines' allows for exceptions for exceptional articles. Having said that, I will be mindful of page size, but this should not be our major concern when authoring the article. Context and good writing should be our primary concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not read Wikipedia:Article size? Guidelines are there to produce better, more readable articles for users, not simply as a form of bureaucratic stupidity; if you put the Footnotes back in (which you need to) rather than one toe over the line, this article has a whole leg. It needs to be considerably shorter to come anywhere near size guidelines.

Some encyclopedias devote several dozen pages to important/famous subjects. "Good writing" for an online encyclopedia is concise, clear and simple; the article on the ARW in the online Encyclopedia Britannica is considerably shorter than this for a reason;

Wikipedia research shows 60% of users only ever look at the Lead, more if they're accessing it using a mobile platform, which is nearly 70% for this article. My point is (a) huge chunks of this article aren't read by anyone and (b) the longer it is, the less likely they will. Why make it harder?

Readers shouldn't be forced to jump to a dozen+ different articles just to get a comprehensive idea of the ARW. (a) Comprehensive is not the same as long, (b) that misunderstands the entire nature of online consumption and design.

If you feel this article is essentially fine and doesn't need to be shorter, just say so and I'll happily return to the 17th century. This is an important point of principle and trying to persuade each otherwise is not worth the energy. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice if you assumed a more friendly tone. Rather than just "saying so" I thought it would be better to explain so. No one said a long article is the same as a comprehensive article. As was clearly explained, to present the many topics in context, room is often needed. Please be reminded that every guideline banner says there are exceptions to the rule. There are plenty of GA and FA articles whose length is around the 100k mark. Not being from the 17th century, people these days use discretion when they are faced with rules and guidelines. I'm assuming the exception clause above every guideline was included for good reasons, and it seems you've just presented us with one, as you seem eager to remove content just to get a prose number down. You're one of the primary editors of the French Revolution article. It is currently at 91k prose size. The Napoleon (Good) article is at 110k, and no one is making an issue over their length.

"Wikipedia research shows 60% of users only ever look at the Lead, more if they're accessing it using a mobile platform, which is nearly 70% for this article. My point is (a) huge chunks of this article aren't read by anyone and (b) the longer it is, the less likely they will. Why make it harder?"

As I've already indicated, most people only read the lede and perhaps one or two sections of interest. They will do this regardless of how long the article is. The assumption that much of the text will not be read simply because the article happens to be long is without basis. Readers interested in the subject will read until their heart's content, esp if the narrative presents the topics in context, with some depth. It seems you haven't given us anything that would tell us otherwise. We are not writing for only 60% of the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A word about redundant statements

With the assumption everyone already knows, sometimes things need to be said regardless: Often times a statement of fact can be made in one section, while the same general statement can be made yet again in a different section, only in context with another topic. As a friendly reminder to all, when we encounter a statement that, by itself, seems redundant, we should make certain we are not removing any important context before we decide to remove it. No one is saying that this has occurred recently, btw – just a word of caution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)