Jump to content

Talk:Intolerable Acts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title Dispute

Shouldn't the title of the article be 'Coercive Acts' or something of that nature? My reasoning is that that is what the acts are called in England, the nation in which they were passed. Agree/Disagree/Comment? Firestorm 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, can you produce any evidence that they are more commonly known by a name other than the "Intolerable Acts"? The acts certainly were of greater significance to the colonies than to Britain, so without any additional evidence, I'd say they should stay where they are. older≠wiser 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And before pursuing this line further, it really might be useful to read the discussion of the very same subject at the top of the page. (Though I took a position before, I don't insist on it. In fact, I think the argument given there in favor of the present title is persuasive.) Dandrake 01:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

September 19, 2006 2nd consecutive revert

Just a note here explaining my revert immediately following another's revert. There was additional vandalism in the article (the insertion of several instances "OWNED") from a previous edit. My revert to an earlier version has removed them. Cheers, El Krem 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For such a provoking title...

... this article seems bland and sanitized. I'd like to see some meat on these bones, assuming there is any. -- Chris 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine that most of the meat is in American Revolution and related articles. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit of meat, right next to the bones. :) Bo 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Entire Page

I have changed the page back to the one it looked like on December 6th. Can someone please edit it? I am not an expert at this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.12.151 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Removed "I love you" from the text.

Erased some vandalism

"..This was an agreement to boycott British goods and if that did not get the acts reversed after a year, to stop exporting goods to Great Britain as well. I love you. The Intolerable Acts were the last straw for both Great Britain and the colonies..."

I suggest this article be locked so that anonymous people don't interfere with others who seriously need information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.206.230 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Not going to happen; we don't lock articles just for minor vandalism. If it were a WoW-clone targeting it or massive vandalism, then maybe. Also, don't write a comment on the talk page for every minor instance of vandalism, it just clutters things. Firestorm 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Quartering in Private Homes?

This article explicitly states that the Quartering Act of 1774 did not allow for the quartering of soldiers in private homes, but the Quartering Act article says that this was, in fact, a part of the law.

[...]it required that troops be housed not only in commercial and empty buildings but in occupied dwellings as well.

Can someone clarify?

--Skillet5 03:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out: I meant to update the Quartering Act language too, but didn't get around to it. While many sources claim that the Quartering Act allowed troops to be billeted in occupied private homes, David Ammerman's 1974 academic study claimed that this is a myth. (The language of the 1774 act certainly says nothing about private homes, though it's perhaps ambiguous on the point.) I'll update the language of both articles to clarify the disagreement. —Kevin Myers 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look guys.....

This article doesnt even say what the intolerable acts are?!!? yeah seriously nor does it say the significance of them either

1/25/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.14.49 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

After you read the article, I believe that you will retract that statement. 76.217.91.94 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Causality?

I've heard there was a connection between the guarantees La Conquête & the Intolerable Acts (by whatever name...), & to Quêbec Separatism. Can anybody source it? If so, include at La Conquêt? Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Quebec Act carried forward the spirit of imperial generosity towards the new subjects, to the point that it irritated and even alarmed the old ones who were also upset over matters that affected them more directly. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

steps

what were the steps in order to the in intolerable act????? i really need helpSmart anonymous (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Intolerable vs. Coercive

Very interesting essay here that speculates that the term "Intolerable Acts" was a 19th century label that was not in use during the American Revolution, something that I've been wondering about myself for some time. "Coercive Acts", however, was used by King George at that time. Per WP:RS, we can't use that blog as a source, although it's from a very good website that I highly recommend.

What does this mean for us? I've always thought it was basically a 50/50 tossup between whether this article should be entitled "Coercive Acts" or "Intolerable Acts", since scholarly sources use both terms about equally, as far as I can tell. After reading the aforementioned blog, I'm leaning more towards "Coercive Acts". Since both terms are in wide usage, I don't think this is a major issue, but your comments are encouraged. —Kevin Myers 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, very interesting blogbit; thanks. If true that the term only got solidified a century later, then the lead paragraph should designate it as invented by historians rather than disaffected colonists. Of course, the inventions of historians are not necessarily illegitimate as article names; for example it was never commonplace to say "We're living in the Middle Ages" or "fighting World War I" but the article should clarify the source of terminology. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, the trouble is that I'm not aware of any citable source that has examined the origin of the term. Historians generally appear to have used the term without discussing its origin, or to have accepted without verification the claim that colonists called them the "Intolerable Acts". A typical example is from Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause: "The Boston Port Act was the first of five acts the Americans called the Intolerable Acts." (p. 236) Unless we can find a citable source that examines the origin of the term, I guess we must remain silent on the issue. I encourage folks to look around and see if they can find more information, which may be on dusty library shelves rather than online. —Kevin Myers 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


It should be noted that the Library of Congress timeline refers to the Coercive Acts. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/timeline1e.html There should also (probably) be some consideration as to whether the word "just" should be in this sentence from section passage

On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists destroyed several tons of tea in Boston, Massachusetts, an act that came to be known as the Boston Tea Party. The colonists partook in this action because Parliament had passed the Tea Act which allowed the British East India Company to sell tea directly to the colonies thereby saving the company from bankruptcy. This made British tea less expensive, which Parliament thought would be a welcome change in the colonies. In addition, there was added a small tax on which the colonists were not allowed to give their consent. Again, Parliament taxed the colonists without their just representation. This angered the colonists. News of the Boston Tea Party reached England in January 1774. Parliament responded with a series of acts that were intended to punish Boston for this destruction of private property, restore British authority in Massachusetts, and otherwise reform colonial government in America.

Whether the colonists were entitled to "just representation" on the matter seems a POV issue. The removal of the word "just" would be an improvement. Also, with relation to the "Tea Act" rather than state "a small tax" it would be helpful if we had a comparative figure, say vs the amount of duty which was being applied previously due to sales at Auction in London

86.178.85.107 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intolerable Acts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Rape" in image caption

I changed rape in the image caption to abuse and this was reverted. The argument, "powerful men leering over naked woman-one pulling up her dress and looking under--yea that's rape" is reasonable. The problem, I think, is that the caption is actually just inaccurate: there was no literal "rape" of Boston to denounce in the cartoon. A better caption might be "A cartoon likening the Intolerable Acts to rape" or something like. Comments? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear from the cartoon that the person is a woman. The breasts are not overly pronounced and the "dress" looks like a bed-sheet to me. older ≠ wiser 23:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The cartoonist likened the attack on Boston to a rape. Note the leering man at the right lifting her dress and peering up her legs. Note the woman in the background averting her eyes. That's the strongest portrayal of rape in American art for many decades. And yes "rape" was used in 18th century political language to describe a hoirrible political abuse--just like today. For example DeFoe: 1706 "When Kings their Crowns without Consent obtain, 'Tis all a mighty Rape, and not a Reign." For that matter Shakespeare: "Thou hast..done a rape upon the maiden vertue of the Crowne." Rjensen 23:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon makes the implication of impending rape secondary. The primary figures represent Boston (the woman) and the Boston Port Act (the man with the kettle). The caption is "The able Doctor, or America swallowing the Bitter Draught". Without actual sources, saying that this cartoon denounces the rape of Boston or likens the attack on Boston to rape is unverifiable or original research. The most straight-forward interpretation of the cartoon is that the Boston Port Act was forced on an unwilling America and that it was an injustice. Ignoring the primary figures for a different interpretation would have to be backed up. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You're making all that up (original research). You have no sources regarding this speciifc picture. Naked woman held down by powerful men is a very powerful symbol of rape, I suggest. Rjensen 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Without any clear indication that the person is indeed a woman, I'd say your interpretation is OR. older ≠ wiser 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not "making all that up": notice that the figures are labelled. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
if you're not making things up, please give us your references. Rjensen 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Intolerable acts" is the term is used in standard British history books, such as P. M. Barnes ed A New Dictionary of British History (1963) and The Oxford Companion to British History 1997. Rjensen 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remember that you're viewing this from modern attitudes, you need to add historical context. It is highly unlikely that the author of the original cartoon was thinking 'Sexualised Assaults'. It's clear to me that the author was thinking 'asault to force feed unwanted medicine'. Adding more to that would be a POV based on current attitudes, not historical context. --Barberio 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all! I'm a doctoral candidate writing a chapter about The Able Doctor and I came across your discussion on this talk page. There is a strong scholarly consensus that the print is a depiction of an attempted rape. See Lester Olsen, “Pictorial Representations of British America Resisting Rape,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 12 (2009), 1-39; Clay Zuba, "Redness and the Contest of Anglo-American Empires," in Community Without Consent, ed. Zachary McLeod Hutchins (Dartmouth College Press, 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:808D:4C00:9424:64CC:AE41:3432 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

See answer below. comp.arch (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intolerable_Acts/Archive_1&oldid=1082226077"