Talk:American Revolution

No Taxation Without Representation

If the rebels said 'No Taxation Without Representation' as is claimed, why did they never once petition for representation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.238.115 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that no Americans ever asked for that, but it seems the preference of the colonies was to go back to control of taxation through colonial governments where they already had representation. It may also have been impractical to have representation in England, given the transit time across the Atlantic was weeks or months. See No taxation without representation. -- Beland (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament, etc.

This material is removed in toto from American Revolutionary War as off-topic there, and posted here for editor use here. Notes, footnotes, and bibliographic references follow:

Stamp Act monies were expected to be relatively small, an estimated 16% of American frontier expense. But with the passage of the Stamp Act, an innovative direct tax was placed on official documents. That provoked further unrest among colonists of every description who bought land, practiced law, read newspapers, or gambled with cards or dice. The taxes had to be paid in scarce gold or silver, not in colonial legislature paper money.

Most dangerously for the Englishman's right to jury trial, the Stamp Act extended Admiralty Court jurisdiction beyond the high seas to violations in colonial ports, with the accused to stand trial in London. The accumulating discontent with Royal collections agents and Admiralty justice culminated in the 1773 Boston Tea Party. The colonial legislatures argued the Stamp Act was illegal, since only they had the representative right to impose local taxes within their jurisdictions. They also claimed that their rights as Englishmen protected them from taxes imposed by a body in which they had no actual representation. Prime Minister George Grenville's defense to the effect that the colonies had a "virtual representation" in Parliament was dismissed on both sides of the Atlantic. Although the Chatham ministry of Whig William Pitt the Elder repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 to widespread rejoicing, it simultaneously re-affirmed Parliament's right to tax the colonies in the future.

The 1767 Townshend Acts instituted new taxes on tea, lead, glass, and paper, but collection proved increasingly difficult. With the new revenue taxes came an enforcement policy from Parliament meant expressly for the American colonies and their widespread smuggling among the islands held by the Dutch, French, Spanish, and even other British colonies in the Caribbean Sea. The “Writs of Assistance” allowed British agent to arbitrarily conduct searches without warrants.

The Writs had been challenged in a ruling by James Otis Sr. in the Superior Court of Massachusetts. But on appeal to London the next year in 1762, Writs of Assistance for the colonies were upheld. For five years after the renewed 1767 enforcement, the Writs were challenged again in all thirteen colonial courts. In eight superior colonial courts they were refused. Where the colonial plaintiffs won, they were subsequently all overturned again in London.

In each state legislature, Patriots responded to the Loyalist challenge by passing Test Laws that required all residents to swear allegiance to their state. These were meant to identify neutrals or to drive opponents of independence into self-exile. Failure to take the oath meant possible imprisonment, forced exile, or even death. American Tories were barred from public office, forbidden from practicing medicine and law, or forced to pay increased taxes. Some could not execute wills or become guardians. Congress enabled states to confiscate Loyalist property to fund the war.

Notes

Citations

Bibliography

• Boatner, Mark M. (1974) [1966]. Encyclopedia of the American Revolution'. D. McKay Company. ISBN 978-0-6795-0440-5.* Bonwick, Colin (1991). The American Revolution. ISBN 9780813913476.
• Callahan, North (1967). Flight of the Tories from the Republic, The Tories of the American Revolution. Bobb-Merrill. ASIN B0006BQPQG.
• Dickinson, H. T (1977). Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-century Britain – H.T. Dickinson. ISBN 978-0-416-72930-6.
• Gladney, Henry M. (2014). No Taxation without Representation: 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance. ISBN 978-1-4990-4209-2.
• McIlwain, Charles Howard (2005) [1938]. The American Revolution: A Constitutional Interpretation. ISBN 978-1-58477-568-3.
• Morgan, Edmund S.; Morgan, Helen M. (1995) [First published 1963]. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0807845134.
• Wallenfeldt, Jeff (29 May 2015). "Writ of assistance, British-American colonial history". Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 25 August 2020. Customhouse officers were authorized to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying either the house or the goods.
• Watson, J. Steven; Clark, Sir George (1960). The Reign of George III, 1760-1815. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198217138.
• Westlager, Clinton Alfred (1976). The Stamp Act Congress. University of Delaware Press. ISBN 9780874131116.

Respectfully submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Spelling error, edit "justificaton" into justification, last paragraph before the contents box. "rights used as justificaton for the revolution." StillUnsure (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution. Cheers! —Sirdog9002 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sundry undiscussed unsoursed POV

Here an editor Shoreranger made a string of unsourced POV alterations to the article narrative including his reimposed American Revolution ending date for 1791, which is unsourced and without a consensus here.

That there were twenty- or thirty-odd unjustified edits does not mean that the 1791 date can remain to replace the consensus 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris signed in Paris by representatives of the US Congress and the British Parliament "ending hostilities between British subjects and American citizens" [as I remember], and previously cited in the Infobox.

Nor does throwing up a chaff cloud of unbroken POV edit entries in the same week mean that the others which are also unsourced are not subject to review here at Talk because of their previously unchallenged proliferation. They include substantive changes without notice on this page for consensus deliberation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As stated in the preface to the article, "This article is about political and social developments, and the origin and aftermath of the war. For military actions, see American Revolutionary War." In addition, the first sentence in the lede states "The American Revolution was an ideological and political revolution...". The date of 1783 refers only to the end of the War. The culmination of the social and political Revolutionary era is commonly understood to be the enactment of the Bill of Rights. Shoreranger (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your reference to the Bill of Rights is related to the political and social developments of the "New Republic Era" of American historiography, and NOT the "American Revolution Era".

So, in reliably sourced literature, historians focused on the first era related to this article American Revolution contribute to journals like the William and Mary Quarterly, and for those scholars focused on events after the Revolutionary Era that closes at the ratification of the 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris by the Continental Congress, they contribute to the Journal of the Early Republic to discuss the political and social developments related to the Bill of Rights. Of course there is some cross pollination, especially after the groundbreaking scholarship of Pauline Maier.

Otherwise your proposal seems to be an innovative POV unsubstantiated by any reliable source to date. After the American Revolution, enactment of the Bill of Rights was NOT the conclusion of the American Revolution, it was an accommodation in-middle-of-the-stream standing up a new national-federal-state regime within the United States. Congress sent it to the states (12 passed consolidated from 40-odd proposed amendments) to forge a common political community between (a) national "Federalists" along with their Continental and state militia political allies, and (b) local "Anti-Federalists" along with their "soft Tory" political allies, i.e.

- ("Soft Tories" were those farmers and merchants within the United States who supplied the British military during wartime, but who did not participate in either military operations against the US nor civilian depredations against US citizen - one such merchant from the Eastern Shore was actually a Virginia Ratification Convention delegate, voting against the Constitution along with Patrick Henry, the Convention's Antifederalist floor leader).

- HAH! mea culpa. The ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by Congress was on January 14, 1784.

Without objection, I propose to amend the Infobox to that date to make it more useful to the general reader to accommodate the contribution by Shoreranger. Would Shoreranger care to do the collegial honors? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking. Yes, I object.

Inclusion in your alma mater's journal is no basis for determination on what the time span of the Revolutionary Era is so I consider that argument moot, but it is interesting to note that according to the journal's webpages "The OI invites inquiries from authors of scholarly works pertaining to the histories and cultures of North America from circa 1450 to 1820, including related developments in the British Isles, Europe, West Africa, and the Caribbean." (to convolute things further the website explains "The OI is an independent research organization sponsored by William & Mary."). By your own criteria - which I again do not accept - the Bill of Rights fits squarely within the timframe.

I will not debate your interpretation of the atmosphere in which the Bill of Rights was crafted. Nevertheless the Bill of Rights is frequently understood and read to be the direct line from the rights the Patriots claimed as justification for the Revolution, and represented the legal guarantee of those rights that in large part then separated them from the Empire they just earned their independence from. That's revolutionary.Shoreranger (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As that may be, (a) ten Amendments made as a federal 1788 Constitutional innovation under that new constitution "of the people of the United States" is NOT a part of (b) the American Revolution carried out by the Continental Congress "of sovereign states" 1775-1784.

(1) An unsourced assertion is not persuasive to overturn an article consensus. Your novel contention that the Bill of Rights is a part of the American Revolution is not accepted anywhere to my knowledge, and when given an opportunity here, you have NOT provided any examples other than your own POV bluster belatedly here.

(2) You have not come to TALK to adequately explain any of your other idiosyncratic takes on American history that are unsubstantiated among your blitz of two dozen or so NEVER DISCUSSED changes that you inserted into the article. Your lone-ranger revert is unfounded and without consensus. It is in turn duly reverted until you can find consensus here.

(3) Unsubstantiated "Frequently understood" assertions without any evidence is found to be merely weasel words at Wikipedia. Try an RfC here to develop a consensus rather than WP:bully. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Professional obligations prevent me from responding to this discussion as timely as might be best, but as time allows I have the following response:

You imply in (a) and (b) that for something to be included as part of the social, political and philosophical American Revolution that it must be an action of the Continental Congress. That is not conceded and you provide no source for that assertion.

In (1) you state that because you claim to personally have no knowledge of something it has no validity, which is of course patently false. You claim I have been "given the opportunity" to provide a source here, yet this discussion is less than 24 hours old, so surely "opportunity" is subjective in this case, isn't it? I am tracking down a source or sources, but have had little time for it.

In (2) you again repeat what really seems to be the issue that appears to agitate you the most: the number of edits made by me. Clearly you have a sense of WP:OWN and feel threatened. In addition, you complain that my edits were not discussed beforehand, which of course is not required as "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia." WP:BOLD. You insult me, not for the first time, by casting aspersions upon my sincerity and good faith in engaging in discussion here and claiming that the number of edits are an intentional strategy to obfuscate changes I wish to hide. That is false. In fact, many of the edits were images and grammatical, and made over a period of time not simultaneously. Most other edits are supported by content elsewhere in the article.

Finally, in (3) WP:WW is reserved for article content, not discussion on Talk pages. You accuse me of bullying, which is ironic, as your condescension and tone, as well as use of pejoratives, clearly makes you the aggressor here, though I have no doubt you feel threatened despite no one's intention. With you revert constituting an WP:EW I certainly will be seeking WP:RFCShoreranger (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No, at (a) and (b) I explicitly assert that the American Revolution as an historical period is defined by the agents of the events within the historical period, and in responsible historiography, that period it is not extended as a political stump speech to their successors in a subsequent regime among the following historical era(s), such as the 1791 Bill of Rights or the 2021 John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

The American Cause of independence in the American Revolution is prosecuted by the Continental Congress. Your blustering POV fabrications assert that the existing consensus sourcing in this article cannot be, and that it is not yet achieved, but it can be found by any general reader in the lead sentences, John Markoff in Comparative Studies in Society and History of October 1999, “Where and When Was Democracy Invented?”. The reliable source of the editor consensus here makes a clear distinction between “wartime constitutions [written during the American Revolution] in Britain's rebelling American colonies", referencing Gordon Wood, versus the subsequent “new United States when its Articles of Confederation were replaced by a more enduring [1789] constitution, whose clear provisions for amendment [added] the Bill of Rights” to that new United States after the American Revolution.

- You and I both agree that the intellectual legacy of the American Revolution is brought forward in American history by US Congressional action for the 1791 Bill of Rights and the 2021 John Lewis Voting Act, as neither of us have made objection to that common ground for 30 days, and ‘silence is consent’ as Socrates would have it in Plato’s ‘Dialogues’.

- Post (1) above merely notes the observable fact that you have not been persuasive here, nor is there a consensus here for your unsourced bluster over the Bill of Rights as part of the ARW in this last 30 day period, nor have you followed through with the RfC collegially suggested to you on my part, WITHOUT any fevered imaginings of insult, bully, condescension, aggression, or 'own'. -- all unfounded accusations pilings-on at Talk in your last post that can only be attributed to WP:bully.

- As for (2) in my post above, it may be that the revert(s) took out more than the unsourced POV dating; we should write a memo to some administrator to recommend an article history edit toggle for removing an editor’s "last [1,2,3] edits", rather than the existing wholesale excision of all contributions that stretches back over three entire day’s-worth of frenetic editing by a lone editor like yourself. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

End date of the American Revolution

The Infobox dates of the American Revolution is amended to 22 March 1765 to 14 January 1784, here.

As the Note explains, The date of January 14, 1784 is when the US Congress ratified the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris after the British Parliament had. The treaty ended the American Revolution with US independence acknowledged by Britain on territory ceded from British-claimed territory in North America, as defined in Article 1 and Article 2. At ratification, "all hostilities by sea and land shall henceforth cease" between British subjects and American citizens, secured under a "firm and perpetual peace", as provided in Article 7. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus has yet to be achieved on this. Shoreranger (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to overturn the 1783 date in the first place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Section: Creating a more perfect union

The entire section, "Creating a more perfect Union" can be deleted from the article and replaced with a sentence and a link to the article History of the United States Constitution.

"Creating a more perfect Union" than the Articles of Confederation's "perpetual Union" lies outside of the American Revolution -- which was accomplished by the Continental Congress from beginning to end.

The Amendments to the Constitution are not carried out by the Continental Congress, although it is true that it (a) called the Constitutional Convention, (b) endorsed the Philadelphia proposal by transmitting the document as submitted to the states for ratification by its novel procedures, and (c) deferred to the authority of the incoming US Congress by dissolving itself at the convening of the First Congress of eleven (11) states (this by the Founders, even though the 1788 Constitution was not adopted unanimously as though it were amendments to the Articles of Confederation).

The Continental Congress that conducted the American Revolution was not extant at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It cannot be said to be the agency of something that happened after its existence terminated sine die. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Continental Congress is not the sole agent of the American Revolution as a social, political and philosophical event. Elements of the American Revolution predate and postdate both the Continental Congress and the War. Participation of or by the Continental Congress does not in itself determine is something is part of the social, political or philosophical development or conclusion of the American Revolution. Shoreranger (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

While abstract ideas may motivate, or provoke people to action, ideas do not cause history, people do.

Reification (fallacy) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (ideals in the 1791 Bill of Rights) is treated as if it were a concrete entity (1776 rebels in governance at the Declaration). --- In this case, NOTHING takes place in human history (the American Revolution 1775-1784) that is caused by an agency (people in governance) which is NOT yet in existence at the time (the US regime in 1791). --- The first ten amendments "Bill of Rights" of the 1788 Constitution takes place under a federal procedure by the voting populace who formed the basis of 1791 US government.

- As an historical event of people, the American Revolution took place under the auspices of the Continental Congress by the 1776 rebels in a 13-state collaboration that formed the basis of that first US government. THAT Congress was not in existence in 1791, so it could not be the agency of the 1791 Bill of Rights.

- It was extant in the 1776 American Revolution for Independence, an independence from Britain that was achieved in 1783, finally ratified by THAT Congress in 1784 in the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris -- And incidentally, to the misguided edit asserting otherwise, US independence in the American Revolution by the Continental Congress was not achieved at the Bill of Rights in 1791.

- The year and the US regime of 1776 was at another time and other than the 1791 US regime. It is a logical fallacy to think that 1776 ideals had concrete agency in 1791, therefore the American Revolution must encompass 1791 events, or that the American Revolution continues today in 2021 through the John Lewis Voting Rights bill, just because the Declaration ideal "all men are created equal" still motivates and provokes to action among the 2021 US regime of voting people.

- Of course the American Revolution continued in 1791 and it does today, BUT ONLY as a political STUMP SPEACH, not as history narrative on Wikipedia -- "Reification is part of normal usage of natural language, as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such", whether we are talking about the 1791 Bill of Rights or the 2021 John Lewis Voting Rights Act - as an ideal extension of "the American Revolution". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Jargon - "Loyalist" and "Patriot"

I understand that these terms may be used by experts in the field, or indeed by Americans, but they are very confusing and I don't think they should be used in the article. I had to Google "Patriot" to determine that it meant revolutionary, which seems much clearer to me. After all, one man's patriot is annother man's traitor, especially in this case. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 17:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Establishing the first modern constitutional liberal democracy - slavery and female suffrage

This claim appeared unqualified in the lede. I added the qualification that slaves and women were not allowed to vote. I am not sure it should stay in the lede in any form - San Marino has a strong claim to be older, and I can think of no other modern constitutional liberal democracy that allows slavery. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is a "constitutional liberal democracy" defined by what it is or what it is not? For better or worse, slavery has a long history in republics. Republics and democracies depend and operate on their commonly accepted definition of a citizen. Again, for better or worse, that definition at the time of the Revolution did not include people in bondage. Nevertheless, those who qualified as citizens had achieved a federal republic based on the consent of the governed, not on the will of an aristocracy or monarchy. Shoreranger (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Link to section where change is proposed: American Revolution#1651–1748: Early seeds

In the third paragraph of the first section at the end of the first sentence the article states "passing acts regulating the trade of wool,[19] hats,[20] and molasses.[21] The Molasses Act of 1733 was particularly egregious to the colonists", with wool, hats, and molasses wikilinked.

Please move the wikilink from "molasses" to "Molasses act of 1733" such that it looks like ",[20] and molasses.[21] The Molasses Act of 1733 was...". It's unclear that the wikilinks in that sentence link to acts (perhaps they link to wool, or molasses). This change would make the molasses act link more clear and would move the link only a few words later. 184.57.147.234 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)