Talk:Thirteen Colonies

Help request

I'm working on a page which explains the western land claims surrended by the original Thirteen Colonies in the early years of the American republic. As I've researched, it's become clear to me that there would be no better way to do this than to have a map. Is there anyone out there who knows how to do this, has software which is helpful, digs cartography or knows where I can find a public domain version of this material? I've found several examples on the web. My vomit draft of the page--did I mention it was a vomit draft?--is at User:Jengod/State_cessions. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

• State claims 1
• State claims 2
• State claims 3
• State claims 4
• State claims 5
• State claims 6

Map covering some text

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

Fifteen colonies

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

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

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

The Thirteen Colonies were part of...

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

Revolution vs. rebellion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thirteen colonies have already been defined in the first sentence of the article in a factual way "The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies from New Hampshire to Georgia that declared independence in July 1776 as the United States of America." So the adjective "revolutionary" that carries a specific non neural point of view is not needed (any more than a adjective such as "revolting" that would convey the same information but with a different biased point of view is needed).[1] As the adjective is not needed we should remove it as it carries a needless non neutral point of view. -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

PBS, I don't have a cavalier attitude towards NPOV, I just don't happen to think this article violates NPOV. All it does is use the terminology typical in the United States, which I consider a matter of national variety of English. I don't think your suggestions would make the text more neutral; in fact I think they can cause problems where there were none before. For instance, in my edit you mention, I was editing some text that I myself had added earlier.[2] There I said "The borders of these colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence..." But later I thought better of it, because the borders of the Thirteen Colonies were not established at the time of the Declaration. Thus, "at the time of the Declaration" is inaccurate. Waffling around mentioning the word "Revolution" will cause many problems such as this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are they important

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case of Nova Scotia is interesting. It had an assembly elected by the people, founded in 1758 and still operating today: Nova Scotia House of Assembly (see History of Nova Scotia). At the time Nova Scotia included New Brunswick (split off in 1784) and even part of Maine. When the revolution broke out the majority of Nova Scotians were Yankees--either born in New England or of parents who were. According to [3], "At the outset of the Revolution, this province [Nova Scotia] had seemed so much a northern extension of New England that many of its inhabitants as well as their Yankee neighbours down the seaboard had assumed that Nova Scotia, too, would come to join the republic. It looked almost inevitable. [...] But matters rose to a head with an actual American attempt to seize the province." This article, [4], explores the historiography of Nova Scotia and the American Revolution. It seems complicated, with many factors contributing to the colonies lack of general rebellion. The colony "was torn by conflicting forces, and in the end remained passively neutral." There were areas where "the fervors of revolution ran high", and some "outbursts against the Crown did occur", such as the Battle of Fort Cumberland led by Jonathan Eddy--an attempt to "bring the American Revolutionary War to Nova Scotia in late 1776." Other factors worked against rebellion. Halifax had strong mercantile ties to London. The war benefited Halifax. Most of the British troops going to fight in New England went by way of Halifax, the logistics of which brought military contracts and the like. Plus, "with the naval base for Royal Navy ships in the North Atlantic and Caribbean situated..adjacent to Halifax, how could a revolution be got up anyway?" Anyway, my point is that the special aspects of the 13 colonies mentioned above were not limited to the 13. Sometimes the colony of Nova Scotia, in the era of the revolution, is called the "14th colony". Pfly (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fought the American Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"'patriot' is the term used by contemporaries" you will of course be able to source the use by a contemporary Member of the British government if it was in use by contemporaries. In this context it is a partisan word, just as the word rebel is: "we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately".[5] -- PBS (talk)

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

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

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

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

13colonies

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

My Project

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

Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link

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

thirteen colonies

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

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

Betsy Ross

When the 13 Colonies declared independence from British North America and Russian Alaska, a flag was made by Betsy Ross.