Talk:American Revolutionary War

Copyedits by Tenryuu

Tenryuu preliminaries

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)

Tenryuu copyediting 22 November - 4 December pause

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) Uncollapsing discussion. An RfC has been created and there are quite a few discussions open about changing content. As such, copyediting would not be helpful at this time and I will suspend it for the time being. Other discussions and RfCs take precedence, so do not rush them to get a copyedit in. There is no deadline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Lede 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) Pending 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) Pending 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

Tenryuu 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) 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)  Done without further input. Removed that tidbit again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 2 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)  Done. The last sentence looks related, so I've merged the two together and kept it to be more general. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 2 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)  Done. Reorganised sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 2 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)  Done. Reworded. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 2 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) That was jBuchanan 1997, p. 327 - as cited. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)  Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:53, 2 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)  Partly done. I've changed to my wording ("crossdressing" → "dressed as men"). I also tentatively removed this reference as the current Wikipedia article on Molly Pitcher suggests that she may be a composite figure born from "the actions of a number of real women". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Good. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyedits - Strategy and commanders

resolved 'Strategy and commanders'
empty as of 6 December 2020 - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Strategy and commanders introduction - pending

• #1 In the American Revolutionary War, the national strategies for victory and the commander operational choices for success were different for the two sides. The Continental Congress had to field an army to outlast the will of the British Crown and its Parliament while maintaining its republican governance among constituent states.

#1 discussion

- This is a mixture of what the English call 'the art of the bleeding obvious' (strategies are different) and needlessly confusing ('while maintaining its republican governance among constituent states'). Why not say "To win, the British had to defeat the Continental Army early in the war and force Congress to terms, the US had to outlast the British will and ability to continue." Simple and agrees with the Mays reference provided - the original does not. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Good. Yes. brevity. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - rewrite-tvh: "The Continental Congress had to outlast the British will and ability to continue, the British government had to defeat the Continental Army early in the war and force Congress to terms." - rationale: a) chronological sequence, Congress initiated the rebellion; b) links for terms should be renewed at the beginning of each of the seven (7) numbered Table of Contents headers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• #2 In London, the British government had a track record of successfully subduing a rebelling countryside in both Scotland and Ireland by enlisting local landowners to administer county government of the realm, and admitted local Members of Parliament for the Scots after 1704.

This sentence makes no sense, nor is it supported by the Mays reference; where does it come from, how does it relate to the American War and what's the point? It should be removed. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

- How Westminster put down rebellions before is relevant to how it might put down the one at hand in America. By 1775 Westminster had faced rebellions within the Cabinet's personal memory in Ireland and Scotland. Mays says that British government could never decisively decide how to choose from among their previous strategic options that had been successful in the past: a) crushing the rebellion ruthlessly with hangings, beheadings, draw-and-quartering, heads on pikes, and importing King's Men to be the new Lords of the Manors in the local estates -- b) reconciling with rebels whose leaders would disperse their troops, elevating them to titled nobility, and allowing membership in the House of Commons and House of Lords, -- or c) a one-two sequence in policy by crushing active armed resistance in the field, then embracing rebel landowners who took an oath of allegiance, permitting them to represent their local ridings in Parliament.

- All three courses of action had found a successful result, but uncertainty in the case of the American insurrection was compounded in four dimensions: a) the King-Lords-Commons never settled on one strategy at any time prior to 1781 Yorktown and the collapse of public and Parliament support for their "American war", b) Whig Opposition in Parliament was vocal with London merchant and newspaper support, c) the most experienced British Army and Royal Navy senior officers refused to accept an appointment to come out of half-pay to put down the American rebellion, and d) factions in every Great Power Court of the Enlightened despots were sympathetic to the American Cause in Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, Spain, Portugal, and Serbia. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I honestly don't the energy to follow this - why does it take you so long to make your point? Wtf is a "local riding"? And what is this obsession with "enlightened despots"? Why not just say "Parliament had a choice between ruthless repression or co-opting local leaders and for various reasons could never decide which one to follow." Robinvp11 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, progress even if it is under protest. This is good collegial copyediting that furthers our editorial process for the ARW article. We are progressing from an initial place wondering, Whether editors here can relate (a) previous British rebellion policy to (b) policy alternatives for the British in their "American war", without another dispute between us. Thank you for your respectful consideration here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of the British government's "track record" of subduing rebellion, this wasn't so much a conscious strategy as simply the way that such forces were traditionally raised, wasn't it? In Scotland for example the local heritors were responsible for raising militia or fencible regiments - the kind that dealt with Argyll's Rising for example. They were also generally responsible for the administration of local government and justice - again, this wasn't about a "rebellion policy" or imposition of some kind of martial law, it was just the way these things were done; would you agree this was accurate @Robinvp11:?

Secondly on the larger point of a choice between 'strategies', I'm not entirely convinced that any rebellion "in living memory" of the Cabinet in 1775 had been put down with conspicuous brutality; 1715 was very lightly punished and there hadn't even been a rebellion in Ireland for nearly a century at that point. Even 1745 was handled with a minimum of executions - mostly of English Jacobites, deserters, and various figures like the Earl of Derwentwater considered to have been given enough chances already. What's the "b" strategy supposed to be - it sounds a little like the Tudors' policy in Ireland, but what does that have to do with 1775 in America? This all seems a strange point for Mays to make.Svejk74 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• #3 The rest of this section purports to be sourced from Mays Pages 2 & 3; some of it is, a lot of it isn't eg By 1775, British American colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors and they purchased British-manufactured goods that maintained its industrial growth. Newly enforced and expanded mercantile regulation restricted previous international Caribbean trade and colonial laissez-faire smuggling.

#3 discussion and drafts

Where does this come from? Not from Mays certainly. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) This is where we part ways, here: You do seem self-assured, "Where does this come from? Not from Mays certainly." -- So please take the time to carefully answer these four (4) points of (a) sourced information paraphrased at ARW and (b) the related transcript taken directly from the source verbatim: From notes at the cited May's third edition 2019, Rowman & Littlefield: - part-1. ARW British American colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors = Mays cited "Great Britain required an American colonial supply of raw materials for its ships and one-third its sailors", (18 words paraphrased to 15 = 3 fewer words). - part-2. ARW purchased British-manufactured goods that maintained its industrial growth = Mays cited "they purchased British-manufactured goods in markets to maintain industrial growth", (11 words paraphrased to 9 = 2 fewer words). - part-3. ARW newly enforced and expanded mercantile regulation = Mays cited "and they were to conduct trade with others only in accordance with Parliament’s rules meant to benefit the British Empire", (20 words paraphrased to 6 = 14 fewer words). - part-4. ARW restricted previous international Caribbean trade and colonial laissez-faire smuggling = Mays cited "These last proved to be as abrasive to Americans as direct taxation from abroad", (14 words paraphrased to 10 = 4 fewer words). - I look forward to your explanation shortly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC) -I've copied this direct from Mays Page 2 (verbatim); The requirements that American colonies provide Great Britain with raw materials, purchase British-manufactured goods and conduct trade with other areas only in accordance with British rules proved to be as abrasive to Americans as taxation. I've checked it on Kindle and Google books eg https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_of_the_American_Re/e35_DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 -If I'm reading your note correctly, in your version Mays has written this; (1) "Great Britain required an American colonial supply of raw materials for its ships and one-third its sailors", (2) "they purchased British-manufactured goods in markets to maintain industrial growth", (3)"and they were to conduct trade with others only in accordance with Parliament’s rules meant to benefit the British Empire", (4) "These last proved to be as abrasive to Americans as direct taxation from abroad" -Either one of us is transcribing wrongly or we're looking at different books. Your wording in the article is very specific eg "restricted previous international Caribbean trade and colonial laissez-faire smuggling" or "British American colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors". It may be true but I cannot see how this can be "deduced" or "summarised" from the Mays reference. -"Where does this come from? Not from Mays certainly". I stand by that statement. In this post, you somehow inverted the two elements. You claimed that what I transcribed from the text was my claimed attribution to Mays. In a way, that is simply an unchanged restatement of your earlier misconception of the point at issue, without taking into account my previous post. Without trying to sort out the conflation here, I'll incorporate elements sourced to Mays in my "Recap" sub-sub section below. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC) @TheVirginiaHistorian: You're wrong and we both know it, but I was polite enough to let it go, rather than belabour the point. If pretending I'm a moron who can't read means we don't have to waste more time arguing this point, then ok. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC) -Restrictions placed on American trade by British commercial regulation were as great a source of conflict as taxation policy. This is a reasonable summary of what Mays says. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Mays presents a logical, coherent and easily understood summary of the key strategic issues; this rewrite manages to be none of those things. Avoiding plagiarising does not require doubling the length. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Commonly known information to those familiar in the field does not require separate citation, but often explanatory material must be provided for context. The encyclopedic style for the general reader does not allow for the scholarly luxury of two chapters to "set the stage". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Mays conveys this information in less than one page, not two chapters, which is why I'm a fan. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Suggested rewrite (tied to Sources provided in the original) a.1 "Although defeating one of the world's leading military powers seemed unlikely, the Americans only needed to outlast the British will to continue fighting, and battlefield victories did little to change this dynamic. The longer the war went on, the more the odds favored the Patriots; failure to defeat the rebellion in its early stages and force Congress to make terms was fatal to British success." - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) a.2. Better "Although defeating one of the world's leading military powers seemed unlikely, the Americans needed only to outlast the British and battlefield results did little to change this dynamic. Failure to defeat the rebellion in its early stages was fatal to British success, since the longer the war continued, the more the odds favored the Patriots." Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Best. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) b. "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts but also a civil war affecting all thirteen colonies; estimates suggest roughly one third of Americans were Patriots, one third Loyalists and the rest neutral. Particularly in the south, many battles were fought between Patriots and Loyalists with no British involvement, leading to divisions which continued after independence was achieved. Lastly, it was part of a global war between France, Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain, with America as one of a number of different theaters." - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Good statement overall. We will want to include (a) Modern scholarly estimates estimate 30-40% Patriot, 10-20% Tory, as I recall. The unexamined 1/3 Patriot, 1/3 Tory 1/3 neutral is from Adams papers, and most scholars are careful to attribute it to him. Does Mays? - Well done in the last sentence! After trying several variations on my own again just now, I believe your expression accommodates all editor interpretations here at Talk the best way I've seen so far (on a knife's edge). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) The figures 'one third, one third, one third' are given by Mays. I don't know what the right figure is but if its different, it needs a Source. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Rewording (the splits have been included in section on "Political reactions) "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts but also a civil war affecting all thirteen states, each of which was split between Patriots, Loyalists and those who preferred to remain neutral. Particularly in the south, many battles were fought between Patriots and Loyalists with no British involvement, leading to divisions which continued after independence was achieved. Lastly, it was part of a global war between France, Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain, with America as one of a number of different theaters." - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• #4. The Dutch wanted the right to trade with their former colony in New York [...] (really?), the French and Spanish to regain lost territories in the Americas and Europe. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

#4 discussion and drafts

The Davenport reference is wrong and this is one instance of where it could usefully be longer. The Grainger reference is misleading (without the Dutch, very little to do with trading with America), plus I was intrigued to hear about Russian squadrons being sent into the Med, etc; may have happened but doesn't appear in the reference. - Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) GOOD. @Robinvp11: Re: "Proposed rewrite; expanded and with better references" below. Your citations are better and can cover the material with less assumed common knowledge, so yours is better. See your paragraph below with citations from Scott 1988, pp. 572-573, and Grainger 2005, p. 10. But, yes, "really". It is common knowledge that (a) the British port named 'New York' in 1664 was the occupied Dutch port 'New Amsterdam' in the North American colony New Netherlands - The American Dutch door is not a corrupted 'Deutche door', but the [Dutch 'farming door'], widely available home improvement stores. - (b) Prior to 1775, most Dutch trade with the American colonies was to the port of British-named 'New York', first as a British ally, then as smugglers. Dutch sailors manned ships of American state navies, including the South Carolinian. New York merchants also sailed the shorter, more reliable sea-route down the Atlantic seaboard to the Dutch Leeward Island, Sint Eustatius which lies to the eastern edge of the Caribbean Sea in North Atlantic Ocean currents. All phrases in the last three sentences can be given RS citations. Please denote which elements are not common knowledge to the general reader, and they can be readily provided. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) This is unclear as a copyedit critique. Both elements of the passage from Davenport and Grainger are faithfully conveyed? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - rewrite. "In addition, Russia, Sweden and Denmark formed the First League of Armed Neutrality, later joined by Austria and Prussia; this was intended to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by belligerents, including Britain and France."" (This is what Grainger says) - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Agree. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Proposed rewrite; expanded and with better references. a. "In the secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), Spain supported France's war with Britain, in return for help in recovering Gibraltar, Menorca and the Floridas. The terms were confidential since several conflicted with American aims; for example, the French claimed exclusive control of the Newfoundland cod fisheries, a non-negotiable for colonies like Massachusetts. Charles III of Spain did not formally join the war in America or recognise the United States, since he was concerned by the impact of the Revolution on Spanish colonies. Prior to the war, Spain had complained on multiple occasions about encroachment by American settlers into Louisiana, a problem that could only get worse once the United States replaced Britain. One enduring and less well-known impact of Aranjuez was a deep and abiding American distrust of 'foreign entanglements'. In 1778, the US committed not to make peace without France; since France in turn agreed to keep fighting until Spain recovered Gibraltar, this effectively made it a condition of US independence, without the knowledge of Congress." b. "Although the Dutch Republic was no longer a major power, prior to 1774 they still dominated the European carrying trade, and Dutch merchants benefitted from their neutrality by shipping French-supplied munitions to the Patriots. This ended when Britain declared war in December 1780 and the conflict proved disastrous to their economy. The Dutch were also excluded from the First League of Armed Neutrality, formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in March 1780 to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France." Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Good. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - A reservation about a. above = "In the secret [[Treaty of Aranjuez (1779)][...]" , may find a better home reworked into the American Revolutionary War#Foreign intervention section. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Working draft – recap: #1, #2, #3, #4

• Section intro 1-of-2 paragraph: "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts. Like contemporary rebellions in Latin America,[n] which were it was an economic war between a European state and its territory that was settled for its own economic strength. But it was also a civil war affecting all thirteen states, as each was split among Patriots, Loyalists and uncommitted neutrals. Lastly, it was part of a contest between France and Spain against Britain over the balance of European power in America and globally,, [ADD and a trade war with the Dutch. ADD Davenport source]"

- The three-part colonial economic war-civil war-international war is taken from Mays’ Introduction as referenced. This draft uses Mays terminology, at both “economic war ” [between a European state and its territory], and “balance of power” [among Great Britain, France and Spain in North America]. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC); modify draft as noted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Why are we re-opening discussions we've already had? "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts but also a civil war affecting all thirteen colonies. Particularly in the south, many battles were fought between Patriots and Loyalists with no British involvement, leading to divisions which continued after independence was achieved. Lastly, it was part of a global war between France, Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain, with America as one of a number of different theaters."

Why can more than one editor contribute in a copyedit? Because no editor can wp:own the article by wp:bully. TVH and Robinvp11 both agree in wp:good faith that Mays (2019) is an RS that applies in this section of the ARW article. Well, Mays has a three (3) part paradigm that your unsourced POV to the contrary should not be allowed to suppress in the ARW article.

Mays says the ARW is three (3) kinds of wars: 1) "economic" Mother-country colony (like contemporary Spanish colonial American rebellions); 2) a "civil war" (details your suggest addressing one of the four theaters in North America come in later sections, reference to aftermath comes later in the Aftermath section); 3) a war for European great power "balance of power in the author's words. --- That is not Robinvp11 unsourced POV that the ARW for Congressional national independence and republican government was "part of a global war". It is not in Mays, as directly quoted and linked for editor review above.

The TVH draft uses language from Robinvp11 taken from this Talk, highlighted in green italics: "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts. Like contemporary rebellions in Latin America,[n] it was an economic war between a European state and its territory that was settled for its own economic strength. But it was also a civil war affecting all thirteen states, as each was split among Patriots, Loyalists and uncommitted neutrals. Lastly, it was part of a contest between France and Spain against Britain over the balance of European power in America and globally. [ADD- and a trade war with the Dutch. ADD- Davenport source]" Note: Mays uses the phrases in "an economic war between a European state and its territory", and the phrases in "a war for European great power balance of power".

So Robinvp11 gets 39 words, and TVH gets 39 words, but those of TVH only complement the structure and thrust of Robinvp11's draft from the same RS source, and only to a) disclose all three of Mays 3-part paradigm, and b) use Mays terminology war for a "balance of power", to replace the alien and unsourced "part of a global war", and c) [ADD- and a trade war with the Dutch. ADD- Davenport source]" to match Robinvp11's draft mentioning the Dutch. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Section intro 2-of-2 paragraph: "The British additionally made war on the European shipping trade of their former ally the Dutch Republic, and antagonized the Russian led the First League of Armed Neutrality, including Prussia, Austria, Sweden, and Denmark to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France. France played a key role in assisting the Americans with money, weapons, soldiers, and naval vessels. French troops fought under US command in the states, and Spanish troops in its territory west of the Mississippi River and on the Gulf of Mexico defeated British forces. From 1778 to 1780, more countries with their own colonial possessions worldwide went to war against Britain for their own reasons, including the Dutch Republic for its right to trade with its former colony in New York, and the French and Spanish to regain lost empire and prestige in the Caribbean, India, and Gibraltar."

- This second paragraph treats the Dutch apart from the French and Spanish. The Dutch are a declining military power who still have much of the European North Atlantic-Caribbean carrying trade, and they are declared war on by Britain. The second paragraph continues a description of the belligerents apart from the Mays paradigm in the first paragraph, to address the military activity of the French and Spanish on the North American continent that serve to make them belligerent and co-belligerent with the Americans in their Revolutionary War for independence from Britain.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Again, what's wrong with this? "Although the Dutch Republic was no longer a major power, prior to 1774 they still dominated the European carrying trade, and Dutch merchants made large profits by shipping French-supplied munitions to the Patriots. This ended when Britain declared war in December 1780 and the conflict proved disastrous to their economy. The Dutch were also excluded from the First League of Armed Neutrality, formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in March 1780 to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France.

This discussion is ended. I've been pretty patient but we're now re-opening discussions we've already had. So put in what you want, I'll come back in a couple of months and rewrite it in comprehensible English. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Section re France

• To begin with, the Americans had no major international allies, as most nation-states watched and waited to see developments unfold in British North America. Why not just say "To begin with, most outside powers waited to see how the war developed." Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Better. - - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Over time, the Continental Army acquitted itself well in the face of British regulars and their German auxiliaries known to all European great powers. What does this mean? - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps better: "Over time, the Continental Army could meet and overcome both British regulars and their professional German auxiliaries in combat." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the point Over time, despite limited battlefield success, the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed by British or German regulars.

The context extends further than that. The Continental Army did not only clash, withdraw, and survive. That is not the whole story.

- It also defeated British regulars on the battlefield, counter attacked in pursuit, and captured two entire British armies, one in the woods, and one with elaborately engineered trench approaches and its light infantry storming Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown.

- This martial development at arms in the Continental Army is addressed in American historiography, but it was considered noteworthy at the time by military advisors to Royal Courts of all the European great powers, including Frederick the Great personally. -- It is also true that the British and German soldiers were better man-for-man as professional soldiers. Thus all American victories required some tactical advantage that could be attained by surprise, or being dug in, or Indian allies on the field after the Indian allies of the British deserted, or via artillery integrated into their regiments in the Prussian manner - after General von Steuben and Valley Forge, etc. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't meant as a critique of professional ability but the idea of an "army in being" eg no one doubts the US army could outfight the NVA, but they couldn't wipe them out - central principle of asymmetric warfare. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: What is your source that untrained, unorganized and unequipped local county militias whipped the British because they were a "army in being"? Except for the Saratoga-fight-in-the-woods, all major battles of the American Revolutionary War were fought by infantry line formations on terrain like that of the battles fought in Europe by the great powers. No serious RS is proponent of the view that Americans overthrew of British regulars and German professionals as untrained farm boys of 16 taking pot shots at red coats and then disappearing into the woods. --- Although I have read such a summary account online in home-schooler "textbooks-for-Patriots". What is the Robinvp11 source?

- What is the Robinvp11 source that US forces in Vietnam were felled by French colonial peasant men in black pajamas? Not only were the North Vietnamese regular fighting men comparable to the best in the world (and almost all Communist South Vietnamese ethnic officers had been killed off in suicide attacks during the Tet Offensive). But a few months after US withdrawal, China determined to take the newly united Vietnam's northern borderland for its own, just at the time that Vietnamese divisions were committed to occupying Laos and Cambodia. China sent massive human wave assaults against Vietnamese dug in positions, which were duly vaporized by professional Vietnamese artillery using sophisticated "rolling barrages" in the mountainous terrain. After a week or so of self-destructive military catastrophe, the Chinese released a statement that they had demonstrated their "point" against Vietnamese "aggressions". I never did get it all sorted out at the time. But I do know that the largest world trade partners of Communist Vietnam has been the United States for several decades now. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: What is your source that untrained, unorganized and unequipped local county militias whipped the British because they were a "army in being" What is the Robinvp11 source that US forces in Vietnam were felled by French colonial peasant men in black pajamas I suppose its useless for me to point out that I never said either of these things.

I made a simple and fairly uncontroversial statement about asymmetric warfare, which didn't even really need a response, let alone four paragraphs of increasingly irrelevant waffle (I lived in Asia for 15 years, I don't need lectures on its history). My mistake, I always forget how sensitive Americans of a certain age are about Vietnam. Have you ever come across the idea of 'is it worth arguing this point?' This madness is reflected all through the Talkpage ie pointless wittering about abstract points of detail whose only purpose is to demonstrate to the author their own infallibility. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Let’s take a look-see. First, points of abstract categories are not historical detail. Second, let's address a misconception that may be abroad about how international scholars of military history use the term "asymmetrical warfare". Misuse of a term of art in one's professed field of expertise is "controversial" on the face of it, regardless of its intended effect at Talk. (TVH on the other hand, holds that he has an acquaintance with Virginia history.)

- TVH suggests here:, "the Continental Army could meet and overcome both British regulars and their professional German auxiliaries in combat." --- Robin replies, “the point is,: ““despite limited battlefield success [SIC], the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed“.

- TVH here: "The Continental Army did not only clash, withdraw, and survive. That is not the whole story. It also defeated British regulars on the battlefield, counter attacked in pursuit, and captured two entire British armies, one in the woods, and one with elaborately engineered trench approaches and its light infantry storming Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown." --- Robin answers here, there is no need to relate Continental Army [or “US Army”] professional ability, but [only] the idea of an "army in being" central principle of asymmetric warfare [SIC]. --- TVH here: What is your ARW source from an RS that suggests an “asymmetric warfare” in the fighting under discussion including those at Trenton, Monmouth, Saratoga, and Yorktown.

- For editor FYI, “asymmetric warfare” is conducted between significantly unequal militaries, such as a professional army against resistance movements of unlawful combatants. “The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "irregular warfare" --- In contrast to asymmetrical warfare, the ARW was symmetrical: i.e. the Continental Army and the British Army in North America had "comparable military power and resources [at the point of contact] and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution." --- QUERY: There is no RS cited in the article assessing the Continental Army as "irregular lawbreakers". So, the TVH ask of Robinvp11 is provide an alternative RS to support the Robinvp11 (to date) unsourced POV purporting to ascribe his “asymmetric warfare” characterization to Mays (2016). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Battles such as the Battle of Bennington, the Battles of Saratoga, and even defeats such as the Battle of Germantown, proved decisive in gaining the attention and support of powerful European nations... This doesn't seem consistent with accounts earlier in the article of how and why France came into the war; - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How is it not? Bennington, Saratoga, and Germantown all demonstrated the developing effectiveness of American arms carried out by soldiers of one-year enlistments, admired publically by Frederick the Great at his court, and by military advisors in other great power courts.

- The French would not aid the Americans until (1) the French would not have to carry the fight alone, the American cause was not a loosing cause, (2) the French had a chance to humiliate the British in North America, but that chance would come to an end if King-Lords-Commons would reconcile with Congress --- the loss of a British army at Saratoga did in fact prompt peace-making sentiment in the country and in Parliament to reconcile with the rebel Congress ... (3) the French might yet regain 'western Quebec' North America as shown in the maps provided the Shelburne administration during negotiations in 1782 (Shelburne's papers). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - elsewhere, the article says American victory at Saratoga brought France into the war because it was worried the Patriots would win too quickly and they'd lose an opportunity to win an ally. This point isn't doesn't make that clear - nor is it clear why Frederick's admiration mattered. - Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See the reply above beginning, "This martial development at arms in the Continental Army".

And, Both elements referenced are true, but in sequence. First, the Americans had to demonstrate that they were not rag-tag, not ambush and withdraw to survive to another day, leaving port cities and the countryside to control of British troops and Loyalist militias. Becoming good fighters with staying power on the battlefield, win or lose, was good, but capturing a British army at Saratoga changed the political equilibrium in Britain and in Parliament

- Second, with the possibility of an early Westminster-Congress reconciliation imminent, the French Court decided to 'pull-the-trigger' to make a treaty with the rebel Congress because Vergennes took his sense of urgency in the moment to persuade Louis XVI to do so. When Vergennes succeeded, he outmaneuvered his rival in the French Court who was more concerned about French Treasury finances and taxation than short-sighted revenge on Britain. His name escapes me, but there was one such Frenchman at Court in 1788.- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reword Victories at Bennington and Saratoga, or even defeats such as Germantown, showed the Continental Army could hold its own against British or German regulars. As well as formal support from France, it brought limited backing from nations like Prussia. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• ...such as Pacte de Famille Link is wrong; this is a treaty between the two nations and it should say "France and Spain" - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is this? can you give an eleven-word snippet? The French and Spanish agree to taking Gibraltar from Britain to cede to Spain at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), which several British diplomatic sources say is an extension of the Third Pacte de Famille.

- France and Spain then undertook a war against Britain that is not connected with American independence with a republic in North America. The new war elsewhere with new aims is (a) without the knowledge of Congress, (b) Congress is not signatory to those war aims, (c) nor is there any participation of Congressionally commissioned officers in the "Bourbon war", as the naval historians, both American Mahan and British Syrett, style it. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This has now been covered in section above. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

-

• and the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War.. As above; should be the Dutch Republic, the war is separate. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is this? can you give an eleven-word snippet? The British Royal Navy sweeps the Dutch merchants and its Navy from the North Atlantic, ending the Dutch trade with the Americans first to the former New Amsterdam, then from New Haven, Connecticut and Sint Eustatius, Caribbean. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, I'm not sure why this is a separate section. I think it should be folded into the one above - less confusing. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, reader confusion comes from conflating the two: (a) Britain's "American war" with the rebel Congress in North America (Britannica), is other than and separate from (b) Britain's "Bourbon war" with European great powers, primarily at sea and touching four continents (naval historians Am. Mahan 1890, Brit. Syrett 1998).

- There are differing elements of historiography between them, relating to time, duration, place, causa belli, war aims, and treaty provisions that are well documented as ways to distinguish Britain's American war versus Britain's Bourbon war. That both were conducted against Britain over the period April 1789 to August 1781 is not sufficient to join them artificially without any document evidence of a connection to the rebel Congress or its commissioned officers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

side discussion on procedure

Ok. Although I think this could be titled 'France and Spain' - having written the article on the Treaty of Aranjuez plus others, the Spanish contribution is often underestimated (eg their agreement to defend the French West Indies allowed de Grasse to blockade Yorktown). When do these become 'final' or resolved? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) @Robinvp11: (1) I think that until a third editor becomes actively involved, once you and I agree on a clearly stated item, give it a calendar day, then I'll move the item into the "resolved" collapse box. I see three (3) items for immediate action to publish in the article main-space, and there are (many) more "hanging fire" for just as soon as I get a clear picture of what-is-going-where: Strategy and Commanders intro: - "In the American Revolutionary War, the national [...]" - "Altough defeating one of the [...]" (third version, best) Strategy and Commanders/American strategy/France: - "To begin with [...]" (2) I like very much more, but I cannot find some of the phrasing under discussion in the current text narrative, so I am not sure where we may be "on the same page". (3) I'm going to try to restructure the conversation a bit more to allow me to freely agree with your critiques and rewrites in more places. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notes to sources

- * copyedits - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyedits by TVH

• Robinvp11 removed image of the King choosing PMs before and after the political effects of Yorktown here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is wp:original research without sourcing or discussion at Talk. Robin rationale: replace picture (again, because this makes it seem as if George III was far more active than he actually was).

- The replacement was 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.

- 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 description unknown to history. 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[1].) 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)

• #1 of 3. Robinvp11 imposed POV that George III was not significant in ending the ARW here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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”. This 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)

• Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

- 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)

• #2 of 3. Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III, posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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. 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)

• Robinvp11 removed first step to Euro peace: international armistice ===

posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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."

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)

• Robinvp11 POV removed 'American War' opposition in Parliament, Tory and Whig===

posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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).

- 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)

• #3 of 3. Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

- 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)

• Robinvp11 removed reference to the Second Hundred Years' War 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". 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." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(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)

to be completed

(-) to be completed.

Comments:

to be completed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed 'Legacy' section

preliminary discussion

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,[2] 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).

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

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:

proposal discussion

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)

Copyedits by Gwillhickers

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, 2007, pp. 38, 113>  Fixed

• "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>  Fixed

• "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)

INSERT: @Gwillhickers: I set up this section for your expressed, specific copyedit concerns.

It is meant to match that of Tenryuu, Robinvp11, and my self in a parallel structure, implying a comparable "domain" for your editorial direction and control --- since this Talk seems to slip off the rails so easily in so many sections, in so many directions, initiated by so many editors of different views and alternative purposes here.

And, regarding the four copyedits itemized by you here at Talk, Were you the editor who struck out and labelled two items that you raised as  Fixed? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

discussion 30 Nov - 1 Dec

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)

Actually, no one said George wrote the speech, but then, that begs the question -- who did? Your estimation here suggests that the king had no say, or authority, whatsoever. If that was the case what was his purpose? Did he not have the power to withhold bills? According to Paine: "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; ..." It would seem this would afford him some leverage and say so regarding laws, acts and so forth. It seems it would be best to refer to the King and Parliament jointly when mentioning the various acts and laws put forth by Britain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above and provided a source, the PM wrote the King's speech. There is a dispute over whether the king may withhold bills at the request of cabinet (this was last done in 1708), while others claim no such discretion exists. There is no claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent, although this actually happened five times during the reign of William III. The cabinet has the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so. Anyway, you should use more recent sources than Common Sense, which is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So the sources are conflicting. The question still remains -- what was the King's purpose during the ARW? Common sense is a primary source, and can be referred to as such. If that work is not a RS, than neither are the Washington papers, the Jefferson Papers, Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, etc, all of which are routinely referred to by scholars. However, if an item in a primary source is contested, secondary sources should be consulted, which I have no problem with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

None of them are reliable sources for our purposes. Historians use their papers, and other documents and try to determine what happened. Wikipedia editors use the findings of historians as sources. I believe that George III had his favorite ministers. But they were only able to carry out their policies with the support of the House of Commons. And sometimes the Commons switched their support to the opposition and they formed the government. But to the Founding Fathers, none of this mattered because the colonies were not represented in parliament. TFD (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed and have been used in numerous GA, FA and other articles for years.
"Policy :' Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "
No one has made an unusual interpretation based in Paine's source. I doubt Paine spun his contention out of thin air. Thus far, no one has been able to nail down the idea of what King George's actual function was. All I'm getting overall is that he was little more than an empty suit, which begs the question, why did Britain people even bother with the King? Meanwhile, I have outlined above a number of statements that mention the King. Only one of them has been addressed, while the Talk continues. Apparently it would be best if we contacted some credentialed and/or British editors and see what they have to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In The Men who Lost America ] (Yale University Press 2013), Chapter 1 "'The Tyrant' George III", Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III and how they were deliberately misrepresented in revolutionary rhetoric. He discusses Paine in section III. Paine's genius was to transfer American anger from an abstract Parliament to a living person, even if that meant misrepresenting George's actual powers. But then, the first casualty of war is the truth. I don't understand anyway why the writings of the Founding Fathers should be put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible. TFD (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Continued

You mentioned how "O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III", but fell short of relating those powers to us here in Talk. Was Paine wrong when he said that the King had the "power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills"? Did O'Shaughnessy say outright that this was a false assertion? It would seem your impression that the writings of the founding fathers has been "put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible", a straw man accusation, is really your own. Do you harbor the same opinion in regards to the various British writings? All that has been discussed is whether the King had any power. You still seem to think the King was only a figurehead puppet and that he was above any criticism in terms of any ARW involvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

O'Shaughnessy writes,

"In Jefferson's mind, George III always would be the villain, the antagonist in America's primordial narrative, its myth of origin. For Jefferson, this was not propaganda but objective truth.

"In reality, George III had less power than virtually any other monarch in Europe. During the seventeenth century, Britain had two revolutions of its own in which the supporters of Parliament successfully deposed Charles I and James II. After the execution of Charles I in 1649, Britain was a republic for eleven years, and following the fall of James II in 1688, Parliament negotiated a revolutionary settlement in what became known as the Glorious Revolution. It included a Bill of Rights (1689), which became the foundation of the British Constitution and ensured that the crown would henceforth govern through Parliament. The monarchy retained the power to appoint the government, but its choice was limited in practice to prime ministers who had support in Parliament. Although the system of elections was corrupt and the crown had considerable influence through patronage, the survival of the government was always dependent upon the support of independent members of the elected House of Commons. The British consequently regarded their political system as a bastion of freedom and liberty, in contrast to the absolute monarchies of Europe.

O'Shaughnessy further says that John Adams regretted going along with this misinformation. Also, "The colonial opposition embraced conspiracy theories claiming the king had destroyed the traditional balance of government by gaining total control over Parliament to establish a tyranny in Britain and America."

It was not the author's intention to provide a point by point rebuttal of all the misinformation in the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense. But he does show they are not reliable sources for British constitutional law. Bear in mind that the author is Vice President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello in Virginia, the Saunders Director of the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, and Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His book was published by the Yale University Press and won the 2014 George Washington Book Prize for best book on the founding era of the United States. That makes his book an expert source and reliable for the facts.

As I pointed out, the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses. Eventually they assigned his ceremonial roles to his son, who became Prince Regent. There is a distinction between the person who wears the crown and the corporation sole which is the symbol of authority. The Horseshoe Falls in Niagara is crown property for example, but that doesn't mean that if Queen Elizabeth is running short on cash she can sell it to a bottled water company. Or do you think she can?

TFD (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's understandable that criticisms of the Crown would be called "propaganda". Did Adams himself refer to the various criticisms as "misinformation"? This is not at all consistent with the idea that Adams helped Jefferson in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and was its strongest supporter in Congress. We know that various items in the original draft of the Declaration ' were deemed too inciteful, esp in regards to Britain bringing slaves to the colonies, and were criticized on that note. No one around here made the claim that the king had assumed all power, so responding as if someone did only gives the appearance that you are addressing such arguments. Also, you still haven't presented anything that would prove that Paine's claim, that the King could withhold bills, as false. Neither have you singled out any item in the Declaration of Independence as "misinformation" . Referring to the Declaration ' as "misinformation" sounds like propaganda. Thus far you've given us a lot of promotional claims about O'Shaughnessy's book, but nothing concrete. I believe TVH has outlined matters and addressed your points of contention more than adequately, below, so these will have to considered along side these somewhat generic claims, per O'Shaughnessy's book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If you like, I can post to RSN whether Paine's pamphlet is a reliable source for British constitutional law. If you're interested in the king's powers, I refer you to "Giving Royal Assent to Bills" in The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy, p. 25. The term propaganda in its modern sense was not used in the 1700s and I was using O'Shaugnessy's description.

Anyway, what's your argument? That George III was a tyrannt because he could veto legislation although he didn't?

TFD (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

King George's role during the ARW

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, and Lord Cornwallis: — There seems to be some disagreement as to the actual role of King George III before and during the American Revolutionary War. On the one hand it is claimed that he was little more than a figure head, with no joint authority shared with the Parliament and only made speeches, appearances and so forth - on the other, that he had the authority to hold back various bills put forth by the Parliament, and this sort of thing. Currently there are several statements in this article that mention the king, outlined above. Any light that could be shed on the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Britannica sourced role George III played in directing British military affairs in the ARW at George III: (1) By 1770, George III used his executive power to win elections. (2) The king prolonged the war, possibly by two years. - to be continued. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding, that the King had a significant measure of executive authority. For example, it is the prerogative of the monarch to summon or discontinue a session in Parliament. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a cautionary note on editor contributions and sourcing, and a newfangled social media term of art, “firehose of falsehood” incorporating George Orwell’s Doublespeak. One disrupter on the article page and at Talk left citations in place in the article in three places misrepresenting two sources, substituting ”Lord North” for the sourced “George III” - a classic switch described in the novel.

- A second account here made reference to Britain and the American Revolution, with a contributing editor Stephen Conway, who is himself a legitimate RS. Conway's meaning is manipulated for POV. There is indeed a Conway snippet: "Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed". --- But nowhere has the ARW article ever made an overreaching exaggeration and "assumed" George III as a (straw man alert ->) absolute monarch akin to Frederick the Great on the basis of (straw man alert ->) a misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence by wp:OR in a primary document.

- Article characterizations of George III were carefully research and faithfully represented in the article in neutral encyclopedic language. George III did substantially effect major British military policy decisions during the ARW, as sourced in at least three British and American RS. But the commentary filling Talk with a wall of double-speak hinges on manipulating (a) an RS characterization of the 18th century ancient regime state in Britain, compared to (b) reactionary or authoritarian states of the post-Napoleonic or post-WWI Europe without a legislative check on autocratic authority.

- The RS properly characterizes the British ancient regime as relatively “weak”, but the misleading posts turn the quote around for a POV to wrongly assign the “weak” characterization NOT to the RS 18th century “state” as compared to post-Napoleonic or post-WWI Europe, but to their own POV: "weak George III" who was indeed (True part of half-truth alert ->) the 18th century monarch ruling constitutionally as King-Lords-Commons during the British “American war”.

Additionally in acts of anachronism-bad-history, opposing posts allude to modern British constitutional monarchy or George III after the Anglo-American “End of Hostilities” was enacted unanimously in Congress 15 April 1783, ratifying the November 1782 Preliminary Peace (Library of Congress, American Memory). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your in depth analysis and points of contention. It seems we have more than adequate sources to deal with the existing article statements relating to the King, if indeed they misrepresent his role. As I've pinged several other editors, we should wait for their input, and then deal with those statements, if they actually need tending to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Role of George III and getting to Thomas Conway (UCL)

Three editors have objected to the article narratives relating to George III. They do not seek to add alterative mainstream RS views to the article following Wikipedia Foundation guidelines, they suppress any variation of their POV by fiat without discussion or sourcing authority to do so. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've ignored this thread for various reasons but the statement above is simply incorrect. You expressed frustration a few weeks back about lack of collaboration or collegiality; Wikipedia is full of editors making similar complaints and the reason is always the same. If you want collaboration, adopting a less obviously hostile approach would probably help.

I take strong exception to the statement "they suppress any variation of their POV by fiat without discussion or sourcing authority to do so".

The Talkpage for this article is full of similar discussions and while I'm happy to be disagreed with, being told I'm ignorant annoys me. So rather than engaging in a futile thread on interpretation, I did some work by looking at examples where this interpretation mattered. The first one was in the section on the Olive Branch Petition ie "King George refused to even receive it, claiming it was the product of an illegal body.

As discussed in the edit, I removed it because the Source provided does not support the claim. Its not even the right page number or anywhere near it; that is an ongoing problem - so far, most of the references I've checked are wrong.

I then went to the trouble of digging out a correct reference - which made clear the hostility of George's language was a factor in making things worse.

If you're going to have a discussion on use of RS (which I'm sure we all support), then (a) start by making sure yours are correct and (b) do people the courtesy of reading the edits, then criticise. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Supressed RS sourcing

(1) Narrative citing the gold standard Encyclopedia Britannica article on George III is suppressed, without discussion about disqualifying Britannica as an RS at Talk (likewise Britannica regarding the scope of the ARW). The George III biographic article is written by British scholar John Steven Watson, author of The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960). He wrote at Britannica, George III, (a) By 1770 George III, who "meant to guide the country […] used executive power for winning elections […]". (b) "The king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." (c) George III’s Tory administration was seen as "equally incapable of waging war or ending it, [and that] was laid directly at the king’s door" by the British public at the time.

(2) Another George III biography extinguished at some citations, but not yet discredited at Talk as an RS is Hibbert 2000 p.160. The supporting linked quote is "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."

Submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing comments

I would ask why you are relying on an encyclopedia article written 60 years ago when we have an award winning book written five years ago by one of America's leading historians on the era. See Age matters. Also as I said above, there is tendency of some editors to confuse the person of the king with parliament or the cabinet because that is how laws and executive orders were phrased. When we say for example that Horseshoe Falls is crown property, it doesn't mean that Elizabeth II can sell it if she is running short on cash. TFD (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Older sources, and very old sources, are routinely used throughout Wikipedia, esp in history articles. Currently there are more than 40 sources older than 60 years in our Bibliography, some more than 100 years old. The Age matters guideline is largely ignored in historical articles, and rightly so, as older sources often provide us with a way to check the accuracy of the newer sources, which are often the product of acute peer pressure in various modern day academic circles. New discoveries can often change scientific accounts. Rarely, if at all, a modern day historical discovery significantly changes a given historical account. At this late date nearly all the significant facts have long been well established, so let's not carry on as if someone is preventing you from reinventing the wheel. Other than to remark on the age of the source, was there a specific item that was inaccurate or completely in error? If not, then all we really have is an assertion with the inference something is in error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would favor a sixty year old tertiary source written for a broad audience over modern secondary academic sources written by leading experts? The only reason I can think of is that it reflects what you believe and you are unable or unwilling to change your views based on new evidence. Some events from the past such as the ARW, the War of 1812 and the U.S. Civil War become mythologized and collective memory is often wrong. But in these articles we should have the courage to explain what happened rather than what we were told growing up. TFD (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Still no grounds to question Britannica as the pre-eminent English language scholarly reference. No RS authority in the 21st century characterizes Britannica as "mythology". The Jimbo criteria at wp:due weight both support that George III had a role in the British King-Lords-Commons administration of their "American war": (a) "RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]", Britannica at "George III", (b) "prominent adherents" as sourced, linked, and directly quoted at ARW Talk, and by inline citations throughout the article.

- No source is presented by skeptical editors since the Britannica May 2020 scholarly update here. The last reference presented at ARW Talk by skeptical editor sourcing was from 1962. Courage indeed, the first step to get out of a hole is to stop digging.

- The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only properly sourced representations of George III role in British military affairs by King-Lords-Commons in America 1775-1783, ended 15 April 1783 when Congress unanimously ratified the British King-Lords-Commons preliminary peace of November 1782, and proclaimed the "End of Hostilities" in the mutually ended Anglo-American war. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• TVH — Yes, given the several brief statements about King George it certainly is something of a stretch to say there is any "overemphasis" occurring in the article there. As stated the Britannica article is written by John Steven Watson, and I think we can assume much of it is based on his 1960 work The Reign of George III, 1760-1815. It can be borrowed and viewed at archive.org -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• TFD — "modern secondary academic sources written by leading experts?"?? We're discussing O'Shaughnessy v the Britannica source, so let's not carry on as if all of modern day academia supports your view, that the King had next to no authority. Watson is not a scholar? Also, you seem to be making the assumption that modern sources automatically trump the older sources, apparently with the assumption that they offer some amazing new revelations that have changed the historical account, yet typically you fall short of offering anything concrete. No examples. This argument by inference is going nowhere. As I've indicated at least twice, the article statements about the King need to be addressed directly, and any contentions should be backed up with at least two noted reliable sources. I say 'with at least two', because the statements are being challenged, thus far, with not too much success. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• No one said the king had no authority, just that your view of Great Britain as an absolute monarchy is a myth you might have learned as a child but has no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The only "myth" around here is your misplaced assertion that anyone has held that G.B. was an "absolute monarchy". Please read the discussion more carefully and stop misrepresenting my position, over and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor critiques and links

Opposing editor posts variously (a) misstate sources used to support the article narrative, (b) anachronistically dismiss RS information by contradicting it with true things from a future time period of British constitutional history, or (c) impeach 21th century RS as "19th century Whig historians".

Robinvp11 here on 1 Dec: ”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." Svejk74 here on 27 November: "the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power […] He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited."

- Svejk74 represents Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier (1888-1960) in his 1962 Crossroads of Power with its critique of 19th century Whig historians to answer the post using a 21st century RS source updated in May 2019 here, "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." Svejk responds here, "Namier, writing in the early 20th century, demonstrated that most of the assumptions about party divisions made by 19th century historians were wrong […]"

- The Four Deuces here on 1 Dec: ”There is no [RS] claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent […] The cabinet has [in 1775-1783] the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so […].” But then after a challenge in discussion, TFD admitted that the British Cabinet overrode George III only after the onset of his dementia, here on 3 December, ”the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses.” The Regency Bill allowing immediate transfer of George III’s reign to his son was 1788, and he was incapacitated as an administrator of government by 1801, sourced here. Again, 1788 or 1801 does not relate to George III’s role in the ARW. To do so would be anachronistic, bad history.

Submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Critiques comments

TVH, certainly there are times when public officials fail or refuse to perform the tasks they are required by law and under their oaths of office to carry out. For example, Kim Davis, who was the elected county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses, which was required by law. We would not say she had the power to withhold assent to marriages. There were consequences for her and ultimately someone else issued the licenses. Also, in the event a king issues an illegal order, it is null and void as are illegal orders in the U.S.

I provided the example of the regency, not because it happened during the ARW, but it is one example of how parliament can assert its authority over a king who is not performing his duties. More severe measures that have been used by parliament or a cabinet with its confidence include forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation. TFD (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Comparing a 21st century county clerk to the King is not exactly the best analogy. No one has asserted that the King had absolute power, so there is no need to remind us that the Parliament could assert authority over the King in the event he didn't perform his duties. You still haven't nailed down the idea that the King could, within his power, withhold bills, as part of the checks and balances system. The idea that Parliament had absolute power goes against the idea of checks and balances. As for "forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation.", these are last resort actions that occur when a complete takeover of the crown occurs, as happened during the French Revolution. If it came down to where they were about to remove the king's head, it would be sort of silly to think he had the power to say 'no' at that point, so again, you're not really addressing the idea that the king, within the system of government, indeed had a significant measure of authority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The King had the same power to withhold royal assent that a 21st century clerk has to refuse to perform to duties of her office. People aren't robots and there is no physical mechanism to force them to actually sign something. But when officials refuse to perform their duties then it is assigned to someone else and the official faces consequences.

Anyway, the British constitution is not based on checks and balances but on the supremacy of Parliament which was decided by the 1688 revolution. However it retains the language of absolute monarchy. That's why although language used says that the Queen owns Buckingham Palace, she cannot sell it for pocket change. You are aware of that, aren't you?

Incidentally, in France and Russia, the king or emperor had been deposed and a republic proclaimed before they were executed. In England, Charles I remained king until his death. Also he never provided royal assent to create the court that tried him.

TFD (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• George had influence in the British King-Lords-Commons-Cabinet administration of their "American war". The un-impeached sources in Britannica, Dickenson (ed.) and Conway all agree that George III influenced or stymied policy during the British administration of their "American war" 1775-1783. Britannica at "King George III" noted the King, George III extended the American war by two years, as cited, linked and quoted here at Talk.

- Conway 2002, p.15 notes that George III blocked North's cabinet proposals to recruit for the American war by awarding commissions to landlords an merchants who would raise and equip regiments at their own expense. But George III insisted on adding troops to existing regiments to protect existing patronage holders. “Despite the encouraging example of the Seventy-first Highlanders, George refused to countenance any further applications to raise new corps until the end of 1777.” -- That was a George III delay of nearly three (3) years before the British King-Lords-Commons-Cabinet began to follow the successful Scottish recruiting and funding example modeled on the American state militias --- according to a British scholar --- published in 2002.

- For the American military history article ARW, Anachronistic, bad history examples of British constitutional history AFTER the end to Anglo-American hostilities, mutually agreed to by Congress and King-Lords-Parliament-Cabinet, should not be given any currency in editorial decisions about what comes out the article narrative when it is reliably sourced. Alternative historiographic interpretations can be represented, but one editor'(s') POV must NOT be allowed to expunge all other RS representation in the article. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide rs that the king could withhold assent. Obviously, since the king was not a robot, he could decide not to sign something, but then someone else would do it for him, as happened in the case of the U.S. county clerk. Not sure why it matters, since we aren't adding it to the article. It's just that you need to be careful to distinguish between actions taken by George personally and those taken as the figurehead for the government or parliament. Note the king was also the figurehead for all judicial appeals: decisions were orders in council made by the king on the advice of the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. That doesn't mean the king literally sat in judgment. TFD (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, comparing a modern day county clerk to the role of King George during the ARW, 250 years ago, is superfluous. The original contention was over the idea that the King's role was being "overemphasized", and so it's incumbent on those who have made that contention to provide at least one RS that supports that claim in no uncertain terms. This has yet to occur. In any case, none of the existing article statements involve that issue, so once again, we need to focus on those. Thus far we have been dragged into other issues involving new sources v old sources, etc. Can we please get this endless discussion wrapped up? If you have a specific issue with one of the actual statements, please quote the statement in question, explain your contention, and provide the RS that supports it. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The situation is exactly the same. An official who swears an oath fails to fulfill their responsibilities. That doesn't mean that they have a right to do so or that there is no legal remedy. TFD (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Conway's point in one of the sourced citations above, was that in one case during the American war, George III determined government war policy in this small-bore, but crucial way: recruitment to fight the American war would first serve the George III interest in patronage -- so the King cut off sea-first Cabinet members, and then successfully shelved land-first Cabinet members intent on winning the American war quickly for the first three years.

The chapter take-away related to not only (a) George III 1775 isolated Bennington and Sandwich for crossing the King's inclination, by their promoting a sea-first American war strategy, but also (b) George III 1775-end-of-1778 held off the North-Germain proposal for their land-first American war policy to raise new regiments officered by new ambitious men.

The King's and his policy carried the administration for the first three years of the ARW shooting-war with the Americans. It underwrote full pay for existing patronage place-holders who had been indifferent to contractor peace-time corruption. Without a full complement of men in their regiments, the second-son-officers from House-of-Lords families would have been placed on half-pay, which would have had reflected badly on George III and so compromised his influence in Parliament. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

An appeal to Conway (UCL) the commonly held RS

Two Conway citations may suffice to tip the balance in this discussion, as all concerned agree that University College London Professor Stephen Conway. Conway is in the mainstream of international historiography as expressed in the updated George III biography article at online Britannica:

(1) In The War of American Independence 1775-1783 (Conway 1995) we see why George III vetoed Lord North’s proposal for recruitment, delaying its implementation for three years. North advanced the successful campaign to recruit the Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment to put down the 1775 American rebellion. The Cabinet proposed making new officers from among ambitious landlords and merchants who sought a commission by raising and equipping regiments at their personal expense. British peace-time army of annuity collecting place-serving officers led to inefficiencies and corruption. If their regiments were not brought to full strength, they would be put on half-pay. George III personally imposed the fill-in policy from 1775 to 1778, when he then relented to follow the three-year old Cabinet recommendation, and so modeling the successful American example for their state militias.

(2) In A Short History of the American Revolutionary War (Conway 2013, p.64-65) - Conway alludes to the previous George III prime minister, Whig Lord Rockingham (Rockingham’s first administration) and the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, a reconciling gesture by King-Lords-Commons in response to colonial protest and prayerful petitions from American colonial legislatures. But in November 1775, the King in Parliament passed the American Prohibitionary Act for the Royal Navy to inspect merchants at sea.

- Before that time, American Patriots agreed their quarrel was with Cabinet and Parliament, not the King personally with the motto, "Resist a wicked ministry – leaving Majesty sacred." The hope was that George III would dismiss North and his government to return to a Whig prime minister more aligned to their free trade policy.

- But in August 1775, the King declared Americans in rebellion, in October George III announced his support of North’s use of foreign soldiers to subdue the Americans. He further effectively removed his protection of colonist English rights by supporting American-only punitive measures. Now John Adams could declaim, "King, Lords and Commons have united in sundering this country from that, I think forever […] [making] us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties."

– George III eventually fulfilled the American hopes from the summer of 1775 in the First Continental Congress in April 1783 by appointing the Whig champion of American independence, Lord Rockingham for a second PM administration -- though George III did have to promise American independence before Rockingham would kiss his hands at the PM appointment.

Submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Conway comments

It would seem that the sources substantiate the idea that the King and Parliament both possessed a measure of authority in a checks and balance system of government. Indeed the colonists often addressed the King when they levied their grievances, and it would seem most readers half familiar with the ARW knew he was not the 'Lone Ranger' with in the British system of government. This debate was initiated over the statements involving the King, outlined above, so in the interest of getting through this discussion these statements, all well sourced by noted historians, need to be addressed directly, and any changes needed be made accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to Conway's book. I can't find a Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment from 1775. Do you have further information, such as where they were located, who their colonel was or what type of regiment they were?

King-in-Parliament is just another term for parliament, just as King-in-Council is another term for cabinet. We should avoid terminology that can be confusing. The same with things such as the king announced his support of North's use of foreign soldiers or he declared Americans in rebellion.

O'Shaughnessy's book, which is more authoritative, gives a different reason for Adams decision to transfer hostility from parliament to George III personally.

Also, the British constitution is based on the supremacy of parliament rather than checks and balances. Petitions to the king are in fact decided by cabinet rather than the king. See for example The Humble Petition of The Press Standards Board of Finance Limited, which was addressed to the Queen-in-Council. It would make sense to address petitions to George III rather the PM or Secretary of State for the Colonies, because the subject would be protected from prosecution under the Petition of Right 1628.

TFD (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course information from RS O'Shaughnessy must be included in this article, I believe he is already cited in three-or-four paragraphs. Yes, of course. But that does not mean a critical editor(s) can extinguish other RS in an article by fiat without discussion at Talk. No, wrong.

The link given for Conway 1995 works, but there is a return and a time limit for viewing pages, even if you buy the book. Even I have not yet used up my "trips to the well" yet to the "Look Inside"feature for Conway 2013.

It is well to keep in mind that the British Parliamentary system is other than the US Constitutional system. But no one here is confused on that point. Where is this fear coming from? Can you provide a Reflink. It cannot be obfuscation and disruption and smothering walls of words effectively shutting out additional editor participation here. NO - do not suppress RS Conway used in common by two other (opposing) editors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

While we all agree the king had influence, we must not assume it was exercised unless reliable sources clearly say that, and bear in mind that 20 to 60 year old sources have been superseded by recent scholarship. As for anachronisms, we should assume that constitutional conventions were the same as today unless we have reason to believe otherwise. It certainly was closer to today that to the Game of Thrones enchanted kingdom one might imagine it to be. Supremacy of parliament, constitutional monarchy and the Bill of Rights had all been firmly established. All colonists wanted was to enjoy the same rights that people did in Great Britain. It wasn't the French or Russian revolutions. TFD (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

On what basis are you asserting that the "old sources have been superseded by recent scholarship."? By their date of publication alone? By new evidence which has rewritten the account on King in relation to the Parliament? Once again, assumptions are being offered instead of actual examples. Are there any new historical discoveries, lost documents, logs, diaries, that have changed the historical scene in this area? While the King didn't have absolute executive power over the Parliament it was he who appointment PMs, made appointments to the House of Lords, and it was he who held control over the treasury, the 'crown jewels', and as such, could indeed wield much influence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"George III took a keen interest in the military struggle and stubbornly refused to accept that America was lost, even after the disastrous defeat at Yorktown in 1781. Bowing to Parliament's refusal to continue the war, the King reluctantly parted with North. The King tried to maintain some freedom of maneuver by playing upon the rivalry between Shelburne and Rockingham, the leading opposition politicians who now formed a ministry. When Rockingham died unexpectedly in July 1782, George III appointed Shelburn as his successor. But Shelburn was unable to secure sufficient support in the Commons and was forced to resign following a concerted attack by the followers of Charles Fox and Lord North. The King viewed North's actions as a personal betrayal, and, in the context of the unprecedented and recent humiliation of the war, remained implacably hostile to the Fox-North coalition. He withheld confidence from his new ministers, refused requests for peerages, and created difficulties over financial provisions for the Prince of Wales." < Cannon, J. (ed) 2015, The Oxford Companion to British History -- article written by Ayling, S., George the Third / Brooke, J. King George III > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: :Sorry about the terminology. Did you search on 'Seventy-first Highlanders', or 'Scots' or just '75th'? Conway did not spend much ink on small unit histories. I took no notice of any appendices at the back of the book. The focus of the sourced chapter was that George III successfully bent the Cabinet to his will over the issue of regimental recruitment for the first three years of shooting war in the British "American war" 1775-end-of-1778. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The source says the king intervened in recruitment and provides an example. I wanted to see whether that actually happened. Unfortunately I can't do that because I cannot identify the example he gave. Do you think it was the 71st Regiment of Foot, Fraser's Highlanders? TFD (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tyrant vs. constitutional monarch

Discussion

The discussions about whether George III was a tyrant or constitutional monarch seems to be yielding little progress. In any case, it is tangential to what is in the article. I suggest we follow sources and not say he did this or that when sources attribute those actions to the ministry or parliament. We also have to take care to understand that such terms as king-in-council and king-in-parliament refer to the ministry and parliament not to the king himself. Bear in mind too that the British constitution is based on the supremacy of parliament, not on checks and balances. Ultimately all executive must be legal (i.e., in conformity with the laws established by parliament) and can only be carried out with the consent of parliament. TFD (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Now you're misrepresenting the discussion. No one has asserted that the King was a tyrant with absolute authority, even it is deemed he prolonged the war, or that he was not a constitutional monarch. All that has been asserted, at least by me, is that he wielded significant influence and was much more than a puppet of the Parliament. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) A tyrant is "a ruler who has unlimited power over other people, and uses it unfairly and cruelly." (Cambridge Dictionary)[3] Are you saying that Paine, Adams and Jefferson were wrong to call him a tyrant? TFD (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC) He did not have unlimited power. The Kingdom of Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy. All monarchs following the Glorious Revolution had certain restrictions: "With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch's powers. These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission – to this day the Army is known as the "British Army" not the "Royal Army" as it is, in some sense, Parliament's Army and not that of the King." Dimadick (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC) TFD - In a technical sense, they were incorrect to refer to the King as a tyrant, but given the lack of colonial representation, excessive taxes, various acts, suspention of colonial courts, the importation of Hessian mercenaries - cronies in a sense, it is understandable that the King was referred to as such. In any case, it is agreed that the existing article title should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) So you don't blame cabinet or parliament for any of those things. The colonial office did not run the colonies, parliament did not set taxes. It was just one man. TFD (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces, Dimadick, and Gwillhickers:, To accommodate the common understanding we all seem to share here, I have begun to adopt a naming convention here at Talk to encompass the "British government" as "King-Lords-Commons" acting in such-and-such direction, which is shamelessly derived from the John Adams' quote supplied by Dimadick? above. Nevertheless, the article can fairly represent "George III" as an historical actor with intention or effect in "British government" --- whenever an RS source says so. It is NOT for editors of one POV to either (a) alter the sense of the scholar as faithfully conveyed in the article without changing citations, or (b) extinguish all RS citations that do not conform with their POV. Both strategies have been used to disrupt the article page in the last 30-days alone. Wikipedia policy is to admit two and three and four RS sourcing on an event or development with wp:due weight in a narrative of wp:balance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC) TVH : Agree. Until such time as someone can address one or more of the remaining specific statements involving the King that may need tending to, with specific points of contention, backed by RS, I would just bow out of what has become a prolonged obfuscation and a straw man discussion altogether - esp since there are no remaining statements that actually overemphasize or misrepresent the King's involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC) TFD : That was never said. There's no point discussing this further with you if you can't (or refuse to) remember what I have maintained, in writing, several times, here on the Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

-

I just noticed this, and it looks to me like the conversation has petered out, but adding my 2c anyway - I'd have to agree with Dimadick - by the standard definition of Tyrant, and certainly in the context of it's every day use, it refers to a dictator with unlimited power. George was a constitutional monarch, and restrained by parliament. So nah, he wasn't a tyrant in the normal use of the word. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is good linguistics for 2020 cable TV. But 18th century British North American colonists understood themselves to have the "Rights of Englishmen" guaranteed in their Stuart King charters. George III, "the German King" of Patriot propaganda was not a post-Stalinist tyrant in its 21st century everyday use, but he was a tyrant by the English Common Law standards of 1776.

- It is hard to keep the present separated from any historical period. Compounding the problem, professional historians of a remote period or place can easily impose the expertise that they developed inappropriately to a different time or place not their specialty. Which is why it is imperative to use RS in the period for the place of an history article at Wikipedia, such as the American Revolutionary War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

- I didn't realize tyrant was a concept in common law. It's not mentioned in Coke or Blackstone as far as I can tell. Could you provide a source for your novel definition. TFD (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the King wasn't a tyrant in the technical sense, but he was most certainly regarded as such by the colonists. Their beliefs were substantiated when the King sent foreign mercenaries to America. The arrival of mercenaries was the single most controversial issue that bolstered the idea of independence, more so than taxation, suspension of colonial courts, etc, and is what won over many of those who were at first reluctant to oppose the Crown. The term tyrant is currently, and has not been, used in the narrative, but we should at least indicate that this is how the colonists regarded the King, and why. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

They originally portrayed Parliament as a tyrant, but after Paine's Common Sense, transferred the epithet to George III. It was parliament after all that passed the Stamp Acts, etc., and funded the German auxiliary and Scottish troops. It's similar to the way today's liberals blame Trump for everything has been wrong in America today for the last 40 years, even police violence in cities that the Democrats have controlled for decades. It's a lot easier to focus hate on one person than on faceless institutions. TFD (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's understood that the Parliament functioned as it did, but, along with Paine's Common Sense, it was Jefferson and the D.O.I. that singled out the King involving a litany of grievances, and it was the King's family connections in Hanover that arranged for the mercenaries, so colonial anger directed at the King was not exactly misplaced. Yes, figureheads are much easier to target than are institutions. In any case, colonial anger directed at the King should be mentioned, and if indeed the King was widely referred to as a Tyrant, this can be mentioned, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It was the Northern Department (now called the Foreign Office) under Lord Suffolk that arranged for the auxiliaries and they were paid by the British government, not the king. Not sure how the king's family connections figured. Frederick II was separated from George's aunt. The two men probably never met, as George never set foot on the continent. TFD (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

King George I, Grandfather of George III, was the first Hanoverian from the German states to rule Great Britain, so there is a definite family connection which existed before, and regardless of, Lord Suffolk's handling of the treaty and other arrangements, made with the King's blessings. Suffolk just didn't pull the mercenaries out of thin air. In any event, it was the King who was held responsible for what were largely perceived as acts of tyranny, just as a U.S. President would be held responsible for various acts committed. In neutral terms we should relate that this is how the colonists regarded the King, which would further illuminate the status of their overall relationship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

George I was actually the great-grandfather of George III, who was born 10 years after the died. In any case, that's a pretty tenuous connection. Incidentally, Great Britain, unlike the U.S., had supremacy of parliament, where ministers such as Suffolk were responsible to parliament. If parliament doesn't like what they are doing, they hold a vote of non-confidence and the if successful, the government resigns. That happened to Lord North in 1782, although he was not the first PM to lose a vote of confidence. Usually, it does not come to that, especially when a party loses an election and the PM resigns so a PM from the winning party can be sworn in. TFD (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

George I, born in Hanover, was once Price of Hanover and ruler of the Duchy and Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg, in Hanover. George II was Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, in Hanover, before he was King. George III, while King, was also Duke and Prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg, also in Hanover, so their connection to Hanover was much more than "tenuous" -- it was intimate. The attempt to dismiss family and royal/political ties, esp in those days, doesn't carry. George III, regardless if he had ever stepped foot into Germany, already had the connections where Suffolk could easily arrange for treaties for mercenaries. But we seem to be digressing. The issue at this point is how the colonists regarded the King, (as evidenced in the D.O.I.) that he was, understandably, regarded as a tyrant, esp because of the mercenaries that were sent to the colonies, again, with his blessings. Apparently you're not receptive to the idea of covering how the colonists regarded the King, and Parliament and prefer to discuss the finer details of the King's family ties to Hanover, as the idea of covering colonial opinion of the King more comprehensively has been brought up at least three times, with no comment from you on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What's tenuous is not the Hanoverian dynasty's connection with Hanover, but George III's connection with Hesse and other states that provided auxiliaries. TFD (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Tyrant continued

Hanover was a capital city;Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Nassau was a provinces, all of which were a part of the Kingdom of Prussia, which is were all the soldiers for hire came from. While the Earl of Suffolk, the King's emissary, handled the paperwork involving the treaties, it was the King's family and other connections that accelerated the effort in arranging for sending mercenaries to the American continent. We can haggle about the role of the King ad infinitum, but the fact remains, it was King George who circumvented the role of the Parliament in obtaining foreign mercenaries, and it was the arrival of those mercenaries that cemented the idea of independence which was largely what made the colonists refer to the King as a tyrant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Throughout the summer, in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the army and prince elector of Hanover, he had begun to negotiate for foreign mercenaries from Germany. He was indeed carrying out a cabinet decision to send twenty thousand troops to America but he had committed a double offense in the eyes of the patriots in abdicating the basic responsibility of government to provide protection and in using foreign troops against his fellow subjects. The employment of foreign mercenaries was to have a decisive effect in further alienating colonial opinion against Britain."
• "It was not until after the battle of Bunker Hill in June 1775 that George III considered in earnest entering into subsidy agreements with foreign powers. Given Britain's long history of relying on auxiliary troops, the king's decision to use them in this crisis was hardly surprising."
• "The German territory had been ruled in personal union with Britain since 1714, when George I, elector of Hanover and great-grandfather of King George III, had ascended to the British throne. The king's role as elector of Hanover allowed him to offer "his" Hanoverian subjects to Parliament for service in the British army."
• King George I, II, III together had a long history of hiring mercenaries from Hanover.
• "That the measure required, and received, Parliament's approval was irrelevant; the fact that the king considered the hiring of foreigners as an appropriate response to the colonists' actions revealed him as a tyrant determined to win the conflict at all costs."
• Colonial newspapers roundly referred to the king as a tyrant.
• George III expresses his love for his native country, (i.e.Hanover): "so superior is my love to this my native country..."
• Earl of Suffolk acting as the King's emissary: "The secretary of the Northern Department, the earl of Suffolk, offered the Prussian government an alliance thus following "the insistent demands of George III as Elector rather than king to secure the position of Hanover. ...the monarch's attention was not exclusively on the struggle overseas but equally on the situation in Hanover.
• While Suffolk's efforts had been short-lived, the Fu'rstenbund represents an exceptional and unprecedented conflict between George III and his British government over Hanover.

Sources

• Baer, Friederike (Winter 2015). "The Decision to Hire German Troops in the War of American Independence: Reactions in Britain and North America, 1774–1776". Early American Studies. 13 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 111–150. JSTOR 24474906.
• O'Shaughnessy, Andrew Jackson (Spring 2004). "If Others Will Not Be Active, I Must Drive": George III and the American Revolution". Early American Studies. 2 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 1–46. JSTOR 23546502.
• Brendan Simms; Torsten Riotte, eds. (2007). The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1714–1837. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-1394-6187-0.

All of this is your personal speculation not supported by reliable sources. Hanover and Hesse did not become part of Prussia until 1868. Suffolk was a secretary of state, not an official of the court. There was no need to have connections anyway, because the Germany principalities were willing to supply troops in return for cash - that's why you argued we should call those soldiers mercenaries. Note your source says, "was indeed carrying out a cabinet decision to send twenty thousand troops to America." Cabinet, not the king, made the decision. And it turns out it was cabinet that was responsible for the negotiations too. TFD (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the entire statement: The source says, "He was indeed carrying out a cabinet decision to send twenty thousand troops to America but he had committed a double offense in the eyes of the patriots in abdicating the basic responsibility of government to provide protection and in using foreign troops against his fellow subjects." Another source maintains, "the earl of Suffolk, offered the Prussian government an alliance thus following the insistent demands of George III as Elector rather than king to secure the position of Hanover. Also, the Kingdom of Prussia existed between 1701 and 1918. Both Hanover and Hesse-Kessel are located within, though they were not officially part of it until 1871, not 1868. There was much opposition in Parliament in the hiring of mercenaries, yet the king, who adamantly supported their use, was fundamental in their acquisition and was intimately involved in securing those mercenaries to send to the colonies. As for "speculation", I have just provided and quoted from three reliable sources. The only speculation would be your apparent notion that the procurement of mercenaries was an idea that was conceived by, involved and ultimately decided only by the Parliament while the King, with his family and other ties to Hanover, just sat on his hands for the duration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• "On the other hand, the king's decision to treat the Americans like a foreign enemy against whom a foreign enemy against whom a foreign army could be employed reflects a perception of the colonists as outsiders..."
• "The king did not inform Parliament and the public about his decision to use Hessian and Hanoverian troops, however, until October 1775, when the latter were already on their way to the Mediterranean. For the most part, Parliament was also kept in the dark about negotiations for a loan of troops from another foreign power, Russia."
• "The king presented his decision to employ foreign troops as a necessary measure if Britain hoped to keep the rebellious colonies within the empire."
• "The king's decision to send foreigners across the Atlantic to "complete" their destruction was the culmination of a series of cruel and oppressive acts against them."
  (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's right in the relevant Wikipedia articles: Prussia defeated the Kingdom of Hanover in battle and annexed it, abolishing the Hanoverian monarchy. It was not part of Prussia in any sense before then. The fact that Prussia existed before it annexed Hanover is irrelevant. You are obviously mining for sources to support a preconceived view. TFD (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct on that point, that Hanover was not officially part of Prussia. However, you are obviously picking at only one part of the discussion while continuing to avoid the main issue, that the colonists widely regarded the King as a tyrant and had good reasons to do so, and that this should be well covered in the narrative as it was issues with the King, esp his involvement arranging for mercenaries, which bolstered the support for independence, which led directly to the war. Your "tenuous" attempt to write off the King's family and other connections to Hanover tells us you refuse to accept, in spite of the sources, that the King had much to do with this advent. I've provided several accounts, directly above and in full view of your reply here, that says it was the King's decision to procure the use of mercenaries, and in spite of much opposition, esp among Whigs, that is, when they edventually found out what the King was actually up to.

• "The king did not inform Parliament and the public about his decision to use Hessian and Hanoverian troops, however, until October 1775, when the latter were already on their way to the Mediterranean."
  

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Black’s Dictionary definition of a tyrant

@The Four Deuces and Gwillhickers: Black’s Law Dictionary defines “tyranny” as arbitrary or despotic government; the severe and autocratic exercise of sovereign power, either vested constitutionally in one ruler, or usurped by him by breaking down the division and distribution of governmental powers. --- Edward Coke’s ‘Protestation’ against James I was that English liberties were a “birthright” rather than privileges of royal “toleration”, because the Common Law administered by its judges incorporated the best rule of justice from previous Kings as well as the present one. (Berman 1994, p.1677-78).

George III presumed to directly govern the American colonies, altering boundaries, etc., without regard to their Stuart charters guaranteeing them the Rights of Englishmen. He did not presume to alter the boundaries of English counties --- in America, he usurped the English governmental power to do so without consent of a legislature without the representatives of colonial Englishmen, et alia, see the Declaration of Independence for the proper bill of indictment against George III as the ruler of free Englishmen by English constitutions. Parliament renounced that purported privilege for the King and itself in 1779, and the Irish Protestants immediately seized on the law as though it applied to themselves as well for their own Irish Parliament as separate from Parliament as a First Continental Congress, only without presuming independence yet has had the Second Continental Congress, but still creating another crisis there into the early 1780s.

Judges in English Common Law in Massachusetts had ruled against George III acts of tyranny as sovereign in the 1760s - under Common Law, the good king cannot permit himself to administer bad law, however it may be conceived - and these were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence - they were not Jefferson's speculative philosophical ideals, they were precedent holdings in courts of English Common Law --- as previously noted in this article, if recent disruption has permitted it to survive editor wp:own alterations imposed without sourcing, discussion or consensus at Talk. I admit that I find it very difficult to keep up with the changes, but at least there is a Diff record laid down for future reference, say before end of February. --- To avoid possible misunderstanding relative to “I cant hear you” editor behavior, please acknowledge your receipt of this post as a part of our discussion at this Talk. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained above that Great Britain was governed under the supremacy of Parliament. It would be ironic for the Founding Fathers to argue for the rights of Englishmen, if they believed that Great Britain was a tyranny. Out of curiosity, in what year do you think the tyranny ended, or do you think that the British continue to live under tyranny?

See the EB article on the 1688 Revolution: "[The Bill of Rights 1689] abolished the crown’s power to suspend laws, condemned the power of dispensing with laws “as it hath been exercised and used of late,” and declared a standing army illegal in time of peace....The adoption of the exclusionist solution lent support to John Locke’s contention that government was in the nature of a social contract between the king and his people represented in Parliament. The revolution permanently established Parliament as the ruling power of England."[4]

TFD (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the idea of the King and Parliament acting as tyrants was the very issue that caused the colonists to remind the Crown about their rights as Englishmen. As far as the colonists were concerned, the Parliament and King formed a constitutional tyranny, to coin a phrase. Or are you trying to suggest that the colonists had no real grievances? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea how you could read my posting as saying the colonists had no grievances. Also, as I explained, the rebelling colonists changed the epithet of tyrant from parliament to the king. Unfortunately, that obfuscated how government actually worked in Great Britain. TFD (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You may not have actually said outright that "the colonists had no grievances", but given the lengths you've gone through to place the bulk of the blame for abuses on the Parliament, as if the King was little more than a dummy with a crown on his head, while trying to write off his long standing family ties to Hanover, I figured I'd ask. Still no comments about Colonial perceptions of the King. In any case, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with sources to cover this idea. Thanks for all your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sure that you can understand the difference in saying that the colonists had grievances against parliament and saying they had no grievances at all. Also, the Hanoverian dynasty's connection with Hanover had little bearing on the ARW. Hanover sent troops to Gibraltar so the British troops there could go to America. Otherwise it had no involvement. Why do you keep bringing it up? Your description of a constitutional monarch as a dummy with a crown on his head shows a lack of understanding of how the system works. The sovereign represents authority, tradition, continuity, legitimacy and unity above party. They can command a respect and affection that a president or PM cannot. TFD (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read the discussion more carefully. I did not say that the King was a dummy, etc, but that it was you who seemed to regard him as such, with your constant focus on Parliament as being primarily responsible for the abuses against the colonists. The King was primarily responsible for arranging for foreign mercenaries and circumvented the Parliament in doing so. See above reply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the 1688 revolution established the supremacy of parliament. Your statements that it was based on checks and balances or that Hanover and Hesse were part of Prussia shows that you are searching for evidence to support a position you hold on faith rather than objectively considering evidence. TFD (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

From TFD It would be ironic for the Founding Fathers to argue for the rights of Englishmen, if they believed that Great Britain was a tyranny. Out of curiosity, in what year do you think the tyranny ended, or do you think that the British continue to live under tyranny?

- 1) The rights of Englishmen are documented in the courts of Common Law that embrace the best law of every sovereign to apply to the case at hand, the balance struck is that while every king's authority is unchallenged, the justice of each case does not flow exclusively from the whims of a contemporary Sovereign.

- 2) In 1775, George III was not persuaded that he was so constrained by Common Law because of a Hanover connection. His connection to Hanover was that his tutor in Kingship was John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, who followed an absolutist model unlike that the British Common Law. Bute's grandfather was a Royalist who put down Argyll's Rising against King James II, purportedly an absolute monarch. Bute was appointed on the recommendation of the elder son of George II, the Hanoverian-born Frederick, Prince of Wales who wed Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. The widow as the Dowager of Wales scandalously took on Bute as a consort. The Dowager and her fellow is a sympathetic subject among some RS because a descendant of hers was wife to Karl Marx, who was almost arrested for pawning silver with the family crest in Paris.

- 3) The reference to the English Bill of Rights is taken by FTD here to have been preemptively an absolute certainty in all British politics beginning date certain 1688, i.e., it abolished the crown’s power to suspend laws, and condemned the power of dispensing with laws. That is akin to building a US historiography based on documents alone. The only political narrative for the US allowed is that all black men born in the US could vote (i) at the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868 date certain; or (ii) at the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870 date certain; or (iii) at the Voting Rights Act, 1965 date certain. That is not a useful "history" if it uses documents at face-value only.

- 4) REPLY: The year that saw an end to any possible crown-only-tyranny by the British Sovereign was 1811 at the Care of King During his Illness, etc. Act 1811, required by incapacitating dementia in George III. THEN AND ONLY THEN, could a tradition begin building in Britain that, going forward it could become truly said that in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "The sovereign represents authority, tradition, continuity, legitimacy and unity above party. They can command a respect and affection that a president or PM cannot.". Which is TFDs correct assessment for the historical tradition there as it now stands in 2020. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a fantastic revision of history that doesn't warrant reply. TFD (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I do not see any reference to my post, so without any reference to the post, all four (4) critiques stand for each cited element of the FTD revisionist history in this thread. - So the question arises, Then why has TFD asserted fantastic revision of history in the first place? i.e.

- 1) TFD: American political claims to violations of their English rights are "ironic" (dismissed) even if Common Law courts uphold that they in fact have been violated. Since the contemporary Sovereign can do no wrong as King-Lords-Parliament, then the American Patriots cannot justifiably image that a Common Law Court might find that George III in his administration of a law is at variance with the "law of the land" accumulated over all British sovereigns, "ironically".

- 2) TFD: There is no Hanoverian connection to George III by family, upbringing or politics. George III was behaving in the same tradition set out by William and Mary for the British North American colonies, and Congress had no English grounds to object to their governance by King-Lords-Commons, "ironically".

- 3) TFD: In the case of the Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights, the intent in a document irreversibly changes political behavior everywhere for everyone at the date signed for all time. The American Patriots were just making things up, like economic depression and soldiers quartered in their homes, "ironically".

- 4) TFD: Parliament's constraint on its Sovereign is not de facto well established in the 1811 Care of King During his Illness Act. There was no need for the Act of Parliament in 1811, it was already settled in 1688 for all time, "ironically".

- All four TFD responses in this thread are his unique and unsourced POV, a "fantastic revision of history". But as I take his posts seriously in wp:good faith, I believe that he deserves an answer here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I provided sources for all my claims, and ask that in future if you quote me that you do so accurately. Anyway whether or not your arguments have any merit, we are forced to follow the interpretations that mainstream writers have. TFD (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit previous 'Global war and diplomacy'

• Section header previous was Global war and diplomacy.

- replaced by: "Britain's "American war" and peace"

- After the Franco-American victory at Yorktown the article is not concerned about how many other belligerents that Britain may have engaged with around the globe. The RS show that Yorktown effectively ended Briton and Parliamentary support for Britain’s continued “American war”.

- Now, by 1781-1782, the military conflict in the American Revolution is not about all belligerents fighting Britain everywhere for all their various reasons. The section is about the close of the British-subject fighting in an insurrection for independence by Congress as the United States in North America (Britannica May 2019). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• First subhead previous was Fall of the North Ministry.

- replaced by: "Changing Prime Ministers"

- The article at this point is not about the long-term service of a Tory PM and his fall. This section is about the close of British “offensive operations” in its “American war” that was ended by Act of Parliament eight months after the Franco-American victory at Yorktown. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Acceptance of defeat led to the fall of the North Ministry (ie the North government); that is the normal wording used in this era - as in the Trump administration. That is clearly explained in the current wording - it has nothing to do with changing Prime Ministers but changing governments. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Top hat – previous: See also Fox-North coalition.

- replaced by: "See also Rockingham Whigs and Fox-North coalition"

- The article section about changing Prime Ministers from North to Rockingham needs a top-hat link for readers interested in the loyal Opposition that assumes the government at the collapse of the North administration. The link to the subsequent post-American-war administration is useful for readers to easily access the Parliamentary instability until George III could successfully back “Honest Billy” William Pitt the Younger. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

No it doesn't because there was no such thing as a "Loyal Opposition" in this period. This is the recurring problem; you don't understand the late 18th century English constitution or how ministries were formed. Its why this article is so long, so confusing and why discussions on this Talkpage drag on interminably - because you're not clear and you think you are. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Image previous was a lone portrait of PM Lord North.

- replaced by a "two-image gallery featuring the two PM portraits: the-Before-and-the-After". These two PM portraits juxtaposed in a gallery illustrate the British change in policy from forcibly subduing the American insurrection (North), to that of ending hostilities, making peace, developing international relations, and restoring trade (Rockingham). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Image previous was a cartoon ridiculing the North Cabinet.

- removed: There is not sufficient text to support more than one image in this subsection; the image relating inadequacies of the North’s administration’s internal workings and personality conflicts and peculiar vanities among North’s Cabinet are not salient elements to convey in the narrative describing military-related events in the American Revolution. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

As usual, it took me a few minutes to interpret this rationalisation - so you think the popular view of the North administration as incompetents in handling the war are not salient elements to convey in the narrative describing military-related events in the American Revolution. Why not just write "I want my picture." More accurate and shorter. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

American Congress signs a peace

• The section title previous is reworked: Peace of Paris.

- replaced by: " American Congress signs a peace "

- The nominal phrase, "Peace of Paris" is an artifact of European historiography. There is no such document to which Congress is signatory relating to its "insurrection […] to gain independence" ([Britannica May 2019]). However, the Congress does sign an Anglo-American Preliminary Peace in November 1782 that meets all of its unanimously agreed-to war aims, then ratifies it unanimously on 15 April 1783 with the proclamation, “Hostilities Ended” between Britain and America in the Cause for independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Per your favourite source, the EB; "Peace of Paris, (1783), collection of treaties concluding the American Revolution and signed by representatives of Great Britain on one side and the United States, France, and Spain on the other." Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Careless half-truth in a partial citation is disruptive and misleading., the EB source for Peace of Paris, (1783) says -> a) "[...] the Preliminary Treaty of Paris [was] signed at Paris between Britain and the United States on November 30, 1782. --- "three definitive treaties were signed—" -> b) "between Britain and the United States in Paris (the Treaty of Paris) and -> c) "between Britain and France and Spain, respectively, at Versailles". -> d) "The Netherlands and Britain also signed a preliminary treaty on September 2, 1783, and a final separate peace on May 20, 1784." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Top hat – previous: See Treaty of Paris (1783) for the Anglo-American peace, formally in effect at the conclusive peace with Anglo-French peace.

- replaced by: See also [[Treaty of Paris (1783) for the Anglo-American Preliminary Treaty in November 1782, and its conclusive treaty September 1783. Additional reading in European diplomatic history at Peace of Paris (1783) for preliminary British treaties signed at Paris in January 1783 with France 1783, Spain 1783 with their respective conclusive treaties signed at Versailles September 1783, and the British preliminary treaty with the Dutch Republic in September 1783 at Paris, then conclusively signed in May 1784."

- The whimsical POV disruption inverts RS sources as cited and linked. It now reads correctly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

What whimsical POV disruption are you referring to? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Paragraph previous: The Paris talks involved separate discussions between Britain, the US, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. Naval victories such as the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782 allowed Britain to retain their position outside North America, especially in the Caribbean whose sugar islands were considered by many more valuable than the 13 colonies. Both France and Spain had little to show for their vast expenditure; although the Spanish regained Minorca, held by the British since 1708, they failed to capture Gibraltar, whose main impact was absorbing British resources that might otherwise have been used in America.

- removed: The information provided does not relate to Congressionally sanctioned engagements, combat or correspondence with its commissioned officers, nor anything that Congress is signatory to. All information is readily found at the top hat reference Peace of Paris (1783) and links found there. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

So you want the article to include Spain and the Dutch as Belligerents in the war, reference them under Foreign Involvement but not bother saying how their war ended because it does not relate to Congressionally sanctioned engagements? While referencing the Peace of Paris, an article which includes the American treaty, but which you've earlier suggested is an artifact of European historiography"? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are well-sourced RS distinctions to maintain in the article.

- (a) You misstate the article here, with a post just as half-baked as the one above, and that disrupts this Talk again: The Spanish and Dutch are "co-belligerents", "waging war in cooperation against a common enemy, [...] generally used for cases where no alliance exists." --- (b) Formal peace treaties, respectively for (i) the Spanish war on Britain at Versailles, (ii) the French War on Britain at Versailles, and (iii) the British war on the Dutch in Paris 1784, those treaties, do not involve the Congress, as must have found by reading the link above and here: EB, "Peace of Paris, (1783)".

- You persist in pushing an unsourced POV asserting something that is not so. This is merely a case of rehearsing the Reification (fallacy) by making an artifact of conceptual Euro historiography into something concrete that you might hold in your hand. --- I regret to inform you that there is no document evidence of a treaty paper with the title "Peace of Paris" inked at the top and with signatures of the Congressional peace delegation. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Paragraph previous: Isolated by this agreement, France was now desperate for peace; the British relief of Gibraltar in February 1783 strengthened their position, while weakening Spanish resolve. The 1783 treaties with France and Spain largely returned the position to that prevailing before the war. The Dutch treaty was not finalised until May 1784, but the war proved an economic disaster, with Britain replacing them as the dominant power in Asia. This expansion meant that while British domestic opinion viewed the loss of the American colonies as a catastrophe, its long term impact was negligible.

- removed: The information provided does not relate to Congressionally sanctioned engagements, combat or correspondence with its commissioned officers, nor anything that Congress is signatory to. All information is readily found at the top hat reference Peace of Paris (1783). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Reorder paragraphs, copyedit paragraphs

Article copyedited here. The edit note: see additional elements at Talk section # Copyedit previous 'Global war and diplomacy' for discussion at Talk.

• Reorder paragraph sequence and rewrite paragraphs a) Spanish & French; b) British strategy-American demands-preliminary peace; c) Congress endorsement of preliminary-conclusive peace

- reordered paragraphs: "a) American peace delegation; b) British negotators-preliminary peace provisions; c) British strategy-French & Spanish strategy; d) prelim peace-US ratify-conclusive peace-British evacuation".

- The lead paragraph for an American history article in the “American Congress signs a peace” section, should lead off with a paragraph on the Americans, rather than “The Spanish backing the French” in opposition to the Americans. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Paragaph #1 rewrite here: When Lord Rockingham, the Whig leader and friend of the American cause was elevated to Prime Minister, Congress consolidated its diplomatic consuls in Europe into a peace delegation at Paris. All were experienced in Congressional leadership. The dean of the delegation was Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. He had become a celebrity in the French Court, but he was also an Enlightenment scientist with influence in the courts of European great powers in Prussia, England's former ally, and Austria, a Catholic empire like Spain. Since the 1760s he had been an organizer of British American inter-colony cooperation, and then a colonial lobbyist to Parliament in London. John Adams of Massachusetts had been consul to the Dutch Republic, and was a prominent early New England Patriot. John Jay of New York had been consul to Spain and was a past president of the Continental Congress. As consul to the Dutch Republic, Henry Laurens of South Carolina had secured a preliminary agreement for a trade agreement. He had been a successor to John Jay as president of Congress and with Franklin was a member of the American Philosophical Society. Although active in the preliminaries, he was not a signer of the conclusive treaty.[n].

- The subsection introductory paragraph gives a basic introduction to the American peace delegation. The background and preparation among the delegation explains that something other than an exceptional “miracle” of history took place at American independence.

- Note: passage may need ‘citation needed’ tags as required. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

What has any of this got to do with signing the Peace? All of these characters have already appeared and its ludicrously over-written. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Introducing the American figures doing the signing has something to do with the signing The general international reader will understand. What members signed was the document, Preliminary Treaty (November 1782), and the document, Treaty of Paris (September 1783). No American signed a "Peace of Paris" in part because there was never any such concrete piece of paper to sign, nor did Congress ratify any such preliminary "document" on 15 April 1783.

The material is certainly more germane to the topic and cogently related to the rebel Congress and the British fighting their "American war", than the previous paragraphs about Anglo-French sea battles in the Indian Ocean without document evidence to or from Congress or its commissioned officers on land or sea. --- Nevertheless, maybe the passage could stand some trimming without losing the substance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Paragaph #2 rewrite here: The Whig negotiators for Lord Rockingham and his successor, Prime Minister Lord Shelburne, included long-time friend of Benjamin Franklin from his time in London, David Hartley and Richard Oswald, who had negotiated Laurens' release from the Tower of London.[n] The Preliminary Peace signed on November 30 met four key Congressional demands: independence, territory up to the Mississippi, navigation rights into the Gulf of Mexico, and fishing rights in Newfoundland.[n]

- Further understanding is conveyed to the reader of the human connections between Parliament’s Whig caucus and the Congressional Patriots. Independence was achieved by American agency, but not by self-righteous fiat over the mythically monolithic British bad-guys, as though American independence was secured by a miracle akin to the parting of the Red Sea engulfing the hoards of Pharaoh's pursuing chariots to free God's Chosen People.

- Faulty historiography that leads some to "American exceptionalism" can be overcome by clearly relating document evidence.

- Note: passage may need ‘citation needed’ tags as required. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Yet more verbiage which doesn't make the point you claim it does. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)