Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution states:

"1200 Hessians were killed in action and 6,354 died from illness or accident. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessians states:

"17,313 Hessians returned to their homelands. Of the 12,526 of those who did not, about 7,700 were killed in battles."

These claims are contradictary according to my interpretation of the context in each case. Perhaps the contexts are unclear. So, possibly more important is the fact the casualty figures in the first article are dangling, the context is apparently "The War of Independence" but is it really so? Somebody who knows something about history should make an adjustment -- Martin H.

Fixed -the author of the Hessian article wrongly presumed that 7700 died meant died in battle when in fact it meant died due to all causes -battle, disease, accident, etc. Also of course the first article (American Revolutionary War) casualties means American Revolutionary War casualties - not sure what other context could possibly be meant. Rmhermen 23:11, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Boston was evacuated by British troops in October [1775]."

Hmm. Evacuation Day is celebrated on March 17th in the Boston metro area, presumably to line up with the evacuation, but I suppose it's entirely possible that the date was chosen for other reasons. So is the article wrong, or is the holiday wrong? -- EdwardOConnor

"The largest army seen in Western Europe since Roman times"? I was all set to kill this, but realized that it was *just* barely possible that he only sent part of it and that's what the quoted figure of 75,000 represents. If that's the entire sum, though, it's not even close to the largest army. Spain and France cleared five times that figure in wars during the 16th and late 17th centuries....Does anyone care to stand up for this statement? -- Paul Drye

---

• As I threatened earlier, I took out the claim that the army the British assembled was the largest seen since Roman times.

• Similarly hyperbolic was the claim that Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire. While it's true that all English cities were remarkably smaller than London, and the colonial cities were correspondingly far up the list, at least Manchester and Liverpool were still bigger than Philadelphia in 1776 (the twice so or more).

--Paul Drye

---

I can't find any reason why the present title for this article is used other than that it follows the 1911 Encyclopedia. The much shorter exact phrase "American Revolution" just gave me 327,000 Google hits versus only 19,700 for "American Revolutionary War" and 9,800 for "American War of Independence". Any thoughts?

Personally, I would refer to it as the "Revolutionary War" (the "American" is just a disambiguator); "Revolutionary War" turns up roughly 3/4 as many results as "American Revolution": 285,000 at google; "Revolutionary War" and "America" together give 143,000 (vs 201,000 for "American Revolution" with "America"); with "United States" instead 117,000 (vs 166,000).

"American Revolution" strikes me as maybe a little old-fashioned or even pompous -- I think of "the Daughters of the American Revolution" and whatnot. Further, "Revolutionary War" as a topic seems like it would concentrate on, well, the war, as the article at present does. "American Revolution" would, to me, be a little more general a topic and would discuss more the establishment of a new system of government. But, don't take my word for it! I'm not a historian, just an American. --Brion VIBBER

Thanks for your reply, Brian. I wouldn't try to explain why Google gives different counts to different users.

(Well, when different users input different queries, it only makes sense for the results to be different! --Brion VIBBER)

I started to question this when I was looking at the List of Battles, in particular the first Battle of Cape Saint Vincent. It was a naval battle in 1780 between the British and Spanish, which my dictionary of battles classes as belonging to the "War of the American Revolution". Many naval battles in this war did not involve American troops at all; sending an American fleet into the Indian Ocean (Battle of Trincomalee) at that time would have been an inconceivable squandering of limited resources. I very much agree that the term "American Revolution" has a broader scope than any title that includes "War" - it would include much of the political activity, and the actions of the terrorist freedom-fighters at the Boston Tea Party. Eclecticology

"Terrorist freedom-fighters"? Covering all asses simultaneously, I see. :) --Brion VIBBER

In Cuba it's also said the revolution also still goes on. So it's not unusual to use the word in this sense as well (of a broader social change), even though that's confusing; a revolution that is stretched out in time is more like an evolution, but then again an evolution normally doesn't start with a revolution, so that word wouldn't apply either. So 'revolution' sounds ok to me, for lack of a better word. DirkvdM June 28, 2005 07:05 (UTC)

---

'

'the American Revolution began much earlier and was a larger scheme including the war It was? Care to enlighten us as to what that larger scheme was? -- Zoe

Over a much longer time line (1760-1783) a broad range of events and ideas make up the revolution, not just the Revolutionary War. I would prefer that we call it something other than a 'scheme' but it included economic, political, religious, and social changes. Lou I 20:27 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm new to this project, so if this repeats an earlier discussion, I agologize. That said, has anyone talked about creating the lsarger article describing the American Revolutionn. What I suggest is a much larger scope than the war, but with more detail than you should see in U.S. History. My question for observers is: what are your thoughts about the content and flow of such an article? Lou I 20:27 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Any objections to moving this to American War of Independence? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Strongly! The war was a fairly large, multinational affair occasioned by the American Revolution (much as the French Revolutionary Wars were large wars occasioned by the French Revolution). Reducing it to just a war of independence for the US seems both misleading and Americentric. This war's really important in the history of Canada, First Nations, Great Britain, even France and Haiti... QuartierLatin1968 22:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Surly it is the other way round the "American War of Independence" was a side show and one of a series of wars in the traditional struggle between Britain and France where each tries to give the other a good kicking (and which continues to this day by all means short of armed conflic)? In cold war parlance it was a Proxy war. The war as not about "revolution" it was about gaining "independence" so that the 13 colonies could decide how to govern themselves. If they chose to revolutionise their form of government, that was an internal issue and not directly relevant to the wars aims. For example if at the end of the war the 13 colonies had decided to invite some German prince to come and be their king, like Greece did at the end of their war of independence in the 1800s, then the issues which led to war, its duration and outcome would have been no diffrent. Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, but "Revolutionary War" is the name with which most Americans are familiar. It is what most of us learned is school. Rogerd 22:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the UK it is usually referred to as the "American War of Independence". For example the 1911 version of Britannica encyclopedia uses that name. [1]. BTW as I said above (back in March) it was part of the traditional struggle, which continues to this day: See the fuss in the last month between France and the UK over the EU [2][3] and the 2012 Olympic games [4], with the celebrations for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar adding grist for the mill (but theirs is bigger [5]). Philip Baird Shearer 9 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

It seems best to keep it as "American Revolutionary War" as that is how it is known in the US and the Americans won. It is better known as the "American War of Independence" in Britain, but Britain lost the war and there are fewer British Net users than American ones. JimmyTheOne 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I've just discovered that Wikipedia considers "the [American] Revolutionary War" and "the American Revolution" as two different things. I've lived in America all my life and never heard of that! Indeed, I would say that "the American Revolution" and "the Revolutionary War" synonymous and widely (if not exclusively) understood terms for the actual war. But if "American Revolution" has become a technical term used by historians, could there at least be a note clarifying the popular and academic connotations? --Dablaze 18:31, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopedia

American Revolutionary War (1911 Encyclopedia, part 1) and American Revolutionary War (1911 Encyclopedia, part 2) were listed on VfD, but suggestions made that they be merged here instead. They currently redirect here, but from the page history, the original can be found if anyone wants to merge this information. It is also listed on Cleanup. Angela. 22:29, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Loyalists

I believe it is inaccurate to say that: "Loyalties It should be noted, however, that a large proportion of the population did stay loyal to Britain, or at least remained neutral during the war. Loyalists, known as Tories, included members of the aristocracy who had a lot to lose, as well as recent immigrants who identified more with their birthplace than their new home. Both during and following the war, Tories were forced to flee to Canada or Britain. Many Native Americans also opposed the revolution, believing that they were likely to suffer more at the hands of independent Americans than the British. An estimated 10-15% of colonists were Loyalists, and about one-third of them left the United States. Some 70,000 Loyalists fled, along with 2,000 Native Americans. 50,000 of these Loyalists went to Canada, where they helped form the colonies of New Brunswick and Ontario. Some black Loyalists went to Sierra Leone." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Revolutionary_War)

AS it is seeming ly unsupported and in that:

regarding the American Revolutionary War of Indepdence (please not this as my response to the issues earlier stated) that "One-third loyal, one-third patriot, one-third undecided." (John Adams (“2. Loyalists a. 100,000 left the colonies4. Declaring Independence (WAYCROSS COLLEGE DR. COREY LESSEIG http://www.waycross.edu/faculty/coless/Am1lec.htm)

(which I recall was corroborated by Dr. Herbert Apteker in lectures attended by Andrew Zito) and in that:

“Loyalists, that sizeable pro-British element, perhaps a majority when open war began, who had stood by established law and imperial unity against revolutionary upheaval” (http://www.canadianheritage.org/books/canada4.htm) “New York City, which was at that time more pro-British than England itself.“ (The Tribes and the States W. J. Sidis chapter 23, http://www.sidis.net/TSChap23.htm)

The question the colonial elite must have repeatedly asked each other is if the growing class hatred developing in the colonies could be focused against the pro-British elite, and be deflected from themselves, the national elite? (Lecture Notes 3 - The American Revolution African American History - Spring 1999 Department of History, St. John's University by Omar, Ali http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/4275/StJohnsLec3.html ). "about 40% of the population was pro-British. (The Presbyterian Rebellion ( by Harry Seabrook (harry@littlegeneva.com" http://www.littlegeneva.com/docs/presbyterian.htm )

---

The lectures and notes that Zito cites are intersting but not entirely accurate. First, we must know that no one knows the TRUE numbers of rebels, tories, and indifferent population. That said, New York City was originally a hotbed of the revolution. From 1765-1775 as many incidents happened ther as the more widely known ones in Boston. By the end of 1775 the royal governor had to leave, and withdraw a small garrison with him. The notes cited claim that there were a great many loyalists in New York. By the summer of 76, there were. Open fighting in New England caused numbers of Tories to leave home. When the British left Boston in March, Tory refugee centers became NYC and Nove Scotia. Everyone expected the British Army to come to New York.

To net this discussion, I haven't seen anything to cause me to want the article changed. However, eventually the loyalist-rebel or Tory-Whig notes should go to the revolution article, not the war. Lou I 16:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Cincinnati

I removed the Society of the Cincinnati material from the End of the War section. Ot's jusst not appropriate there. There is a link at the bottom of the article, and a brief description might belong on the Revolution article, not the revolutionary War article. Also, the claim of 'oldest' is false, the Knight of Malta certainly go back farther. Removed material included: The Society of the Cincinnati was formed in May of 1783, and General Washington elected President of The Society. Washington continued as the Society's President until his death in 1799. The Society of the Cincinnati is the oldest military and hereditary organization in the world, and is still active today. Lou I 12:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

please clarify

Conflict spread, and the outnumbered British garrisons in the 13 colonies were quickly defeated. Outnumbered by who? --Spencer BOOTH 14:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

event sequence

First the war is summarized from the beginning through Saratoga. Then the whole war is described in more detail, restarting from the beginning to the end. Then the quicker summary starts up again where it left off, at Saratoga. Does anyone else think the story would be less confusing if it were told in order? Art LaPella 02:16, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

• You're right: the merge of the 1911 article and other developments throws this whole article into a sort of a mess. My approach has been to keep working on the lower level biographies, battles, and campaigns before trying to rework this article into a summary. But anyone is welcome to try and improve the outline here. Thanks for your interest Lou I 22:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just added the cleanup tag at the top for this reason. I think a timeline would be the normal way to approach a cleanup, rather than trying to talk about the different campaigns separately, since they overlap. Would also be nice to do a pass to remove the 1911 mannerisms about the colonists having good British blood, among other things. Tempshill 23:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(rolling back a whole slew of bad formatting changes and other oddities)

I don't feel comfortable reverting back part of a revert from a much more experienced user, but it struck me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sometimes I agreed with the newest version, sometimes with the previous version, and often I wasn't sure which was better. Here's one of several examples where I agreed with the previous version: "Operations against Canada were soon discontinued, Arnold drawing off the remnant of his army in May 1776." was reverted back to "Demonstrations against Canada...". I don't know what demonstrations meant in 1911, but to me a demonstration means protesters carrying signs, not Benedict Arnold's army with muskets and cannons. Dictionary.com agrees with me. Art LaPella 17:30, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there was a bit of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" here. My first inclination was to try to do a selective revert, but that quickly proved to be beyond tedious and I opted for a wholesale revert. A contributing factor was that some of the edits seemed so dubious that the whole was cast into doubt. By all means, please re-edit those sections you feel need it. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 18:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Maybe the Revolution was won because of "a population mainly of good English blood and instincts", but anything that politically incorrect is automatically a Point Of View. Art LaPella 22:35, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

A cleanup strategy

Well, as you can see, I've started the much-needed cleanup process. My approach is to throw out the turgid 1911 prose, replacing it with a "just the facts" summary of the various campaigns, in rough chronological order. I figure the challenge will be to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the lay reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. So, I concentrate on generals and admirals, with the occassional colonel or chief or other notable, and try to leave discussion of tactics, casualties, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions. I'll do New York & New Jersey next. There's much yet to be done, feel free to jump in.--Kevin Myers 01:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say, bravo Kevin Myers, you're doing an amazing job. I would however like to be able to restore some information I added a while back about Lord Dunmore's War and the Western front in 1775-7, but I also don't want people to take it as a hostile revert away from your cleanup... Also the Western front section as it's currently written has some serious NPOV issues! (I think it's a part that hasn't been cleaned up yet). QuartierLatin1968 22:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, the Western front needs a lot of work. And by all means feel free to put good ole Lord Dunmore back in the mix. I was thinking that rather than mention Dunmore early on, his actions might be summarized in the first paragraphs of the Western front section. However, Dunmore's War evolves into important early actions in the east -- his Emancipation Proclamation, the Battle of Great Bridge, and the burning of Norfolk -- so maybe he needs mentioned earlier. Lots of interesting things were going on in Virginia, to be sure. Maybe we should visit Virginia & the western front in an early section, and then again later? Have at it! --Kevin Myers 14:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've got three points. First, I notice we're over 32 kb again -- should I pare back my Western front additions? Second, I have to admit I know nothing about the Treaties of Fort Pitt, so I haven't written about them. And finally, as I started arranging my material according to your (very useful!) outline, it occurred to me that the Iroquois/Ohio Country distinction seemed a bit artificial. Brant, for example, goes from New York to fight at the Battle of Blue Licks in Kentucky. QuartierLatin1968 06:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we're running long, but there's still lots of important and interesting stuff we haven't covered yet in the West: the "squaw campaign," the Cherokee War, White Eyes, Guyashuta, the Brodhead expedition, the Crawford expedition, etc. (The Fort Pitt treaties are not well known; I'll write them up soon.) I'm thinking we should start a new article, something like the Western Front in the American Revolutionary War, or Indian Country in the American Revolutionary War -- maybe someone has a better title idea. So probably the Western front in the main article should be just a short (2-3 paragraph?) summary. I think in the separate article, the Iroquois/Ohio Country distinction might be more relevant, as the Ohio Indians (Shawnee, Delaware, Wyandot, et. al.) are initially at odds with the Iroquois. But in the shorter summary, yeah, we don't need different sections. --Kevin Myers 06:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've pasted the section over to a new article: Frontier warfare during the American Revolution --Kevin Myers 08:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The World Turned Upside Down

I've changed the line mentioning the song at the Yorktown surrender, adding a link discussing whether it was actually played.

Less of a POV would be nice.

I notice that in the article about the American Revolutionary War, the Americans are often called rebels. To me, this sounds like a bit of bias. "Rebel" isn't usually used as a positive term outside of Star Wars, and since they are rebels to the British, it is not exactly a sympathetic tone. In the same context, constantly calling the Americans "patriots" would be biased as well. Maybe just "Americans" would be a more neutral term. BTW, I'm just changing and adding a few tidbits here and there to make it a little more interesting. No worries, no changes to the actual informative parts of the article. --God 11/18/04 22:12 PST

The terminology can be tricky. Americans or colonists are imprecise terms, because many American colonists fought against the revolutionaries. Patriots or revolutionaries might be best. However, as a patriotic American northerner, I see nothing wrong with rebel -- it is accurate and inoffensive in this context. Indeed, white southern Americans still embrace the term, albeit from a later war. --Kevin Myers 07:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The terminology here is very confusing. First, there's the question what the terms 'America' and 'American' mean. At present many still use 'America' for the whole continent (aka 'the Americas'), but at the time I suppose that was even more the case. Both the 'rebels' and the loyalists were colonists, British (largely) and Americans (unless you take the stance that only the Indians were real Americans, but I won't get into that because it's confusing enough as it is). And the term 'patriot' isn't precise either because which 'patria' does it refer to? Great Britain or the fledgling USA? One point of the fighting was to establish a USA 'patria', so in a sense that didn't even exist yet (even though it had already been declared). And I'd say it was more than a rebellion, so the term 'revolutionaries' seems most appropriate. Or 'independence fighters', but that's a bit long. DirkvdM June 28, 2005 07:33 (UTC)

You're right, it is confusing. For the colonists, the terms we should consistently use for the sake of international clarity are Patriot and Loyalist. These are terms widely used by historians and were in use by people at the time, and they are linked to articles that explain their meaning. (The term "revolutionaries" is problematic because of a long running historical debate over whether the Revolution was truly revolutionary.)

We American (USA) editors sometimes fail to use clear terminology because so many of us were taught that the war was fought between Americans and the British (with their evil Hessian henchmen). Even the Battle of Kings Mountain, which was a battle between American Loyalists and American Patriots, is in some books described as a battle between the British and the Americans. (The Mel Gibson movie The Patriot furthers this myth by inaccurately dressing American Loyalists in British army "redcoats".) Many Revolutionary War articles on Wikipedia probably need updated with this more precise terminology.

It's not as easy to make the word "American" less ambiguous. The proper word to describe someone from the USA is "American," although the word also has wider applications. We should strive to use the word in contexts that will be clearly understood by international readers. --Kevin Myers June 28, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

Like I said, strictly speaking, 'patriot' isn't a good word (I suppose 'independence fighter' is the best description), but if a large majority (internationally!) uses this term, then I suppose it's the best choice, though I understand that a similar case could be made for 'rebel' (is that true?). Whichever term is used, this completely circumvents the problem of the use of the word 'American'. I often have problems with the use of this word, struggling between sense and custom, but here the problem doesn't come into play if all occurrences of the word 'American' are replaced with 'patriot'. That is, if it's always used in that sense, because, strictly speaking, the loyalists were just as much American as the patriots/rebels/independence fighters. DirkvdM June 29, 2005 10:14 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already started adapting the text. That can be a bitch, depending on how you do it. But I 'finished' your work by copying the entire text to Mozilla Composer and then using 'find and replace', which makes it a breeze (relatively speaking), partly because I didn't look too closely at the text, so I may have made some errors .... DirkvdM June 29, 2005 11:11 (UTC)

"American" is the standard term used in Britain and America-- it is the preferred term in monographs, encyclopedia and surveys. The reason is that it exactly describes the political situation: people who supported the United States of America were always called Americans (by friends and foes alike). The war was all about whether this new USA would be allowed to exist or would be crushed by the British. Therefore its supporters raised armies and fought--and that is what the article is all about. So let's use it. You need a very good reason for replacing it, it seems to me. It is not true that "rebel" or "patriot" is widely used. So let's go over the reasons again: WHY replace it?Rjensen 04:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous issues

• An anonymous poster (24.154.223.230) has remarked that ... The author has completely forgotten Lafayette...

Many important leaders (on both sides) and events are omitted. You just can't force it all into one article. Lafayete is mentioned in the section on Virginia, and I can't believe he should be more prominent. Lou I 23:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• An anonymous editor added text claiming that, on Dorchester Heights, "the Americans forces had no ammunition for the cannons, but the British in Boston fell for the American bluff."

My reference books don't agree, so I think a source citation is called for. --Kevin Myers 16:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the following text from the Saratoga campaign section:

A third force of men led by General Howe was also supposed meet at Albany, but the general didn't receive the notice in time. This is called a three-pronged attack.

Ever since Burgoyne's surrender, there has been a lot of ink spilled over why Howe did not support the Saratoga expedition. Above is one theory; there are others. One is that Howe simply ignored the glory-seeking Burgoyne and instead sought his own prize -- the capture of Philadephia. Another is that nobody really thought Burgoyne would need help capturing Albany, but Burgoyne tried to shift the blame to Howe after the debacle at Saratoga. See Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution under "Burgoyne's Offensive" for a discussion of this.

Because the main article is so long, I think historical debates like this should be relegated to sub-pages. Therefore this debate might be addressed in the Saratoga Campaign article.--Kevin Myers 14:35, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the American Revolutionary War article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/American_Revolutionary_War}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

linguistic confusion

See also further up the page #American Revolution vs. American Revolutionary War

To have a url that's different from the title is a bit confusing. Or is this done deliberately to stress that there are two names for it? That would only make sense if they were equally much in use.Is that the cae? I've only ever heard it referred to as the 'US war of indendence'.

And that makes me think (to complicate matters). Wasn't it really a civil war? After all, it was (mainly) British versus British, right? Just in a colony, but officially that was part of Great Bitain, no? Of course the other two names apply as well, stressing different aspects of it, but at the time it must have been seen as a civil war, I suppose. If so, I'd say that should be mentioned. Although it's confusing that there was another civil war in the country later on.

America is considered by many to mean the entire continent also known as 'the Americas'. And there have been several wars of independence in that continent, so shouldn't it be called the 'USA war of indendence'? But then there's another country in America called 'United States' that also had a war of independence, namely Mexico. Oh dear....

And another thing. Spain entered the war in 1779, but did not recognize the new American nation and sent no troops to America to fight alongside the USA. How did they enter the war then? Or is the international war against the British supremacy meant?

DirkvdM June 28, 2005 06:51 (UTC)

There are two (at least) names for the Revolutionary War. Frankly, where I live (US), if you mention the "Revolutionary War", everyone assumes you're talking about this topic. If you mention the "US War of Independence", people will give you strange looks. Apparantly, this isn't true everywhere, but it sure is where I live.

On the matter of civil war... the way I know it as, is that if you have a civil war where the side seeking to change the status quo loses, it's a "civil war" (see American Civil War). If the side seeking to change the status quo wins? That's a revolution. (Just another case of "The winners write the history books", I guess.)

Anyways, Mexico does not consider itself to be the "United States"--they reserve that distinction for America. As for Spain entering the war, but not really... beats me.
--Matt Yeager 05:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

European-Americans?

The section titled "European-American Colonists" contains several paragraphs that are general statements about the army and are not race-specific. These paragraphs should be removed to another section or the section should be renamed. Ken Arromdee 03:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the section to refer to "colonists". I highly doubt the statistics were broken down by race. Ken Arromdee 14:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates of West, South and War's End sections

Could be word for word. Someone want to go through them, make sure there isn't any info in one not in the others, and root through the history to see if anything was deleted when those sections were duplicated? TransUtopian 04:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Statistics on British army in North America.

I'm looking now at 1779 figures based on Lord North's return-books in the William Clements Library, and they chart North American troop dispositions at about 39,000, as opposed to listed 60,000. That doesn't include the Irish Establishment (for which there don't seem to be good records), but unless there were 21,000 Irishmen fighting in North America, I think this is a rather inflated figure. Fearwig 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As indicated in the footnotes, the 60,000 figure is from historian Jeremy Black. It apparently includes Irishmen and Germans, which might account for the difference. It's also possible the returns you're looking at lists only soldiers currently "fit for duty", not the total number of men in North America. Regardless, we should only use figures in Wikipedia that have been published by historians, and not, alas, based on our own readings of published primary material. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 13:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

a primary source is a source is a source is a source...and should not simply be ignored because it disagrees with another. The statement of an historian writing 200 years later should not necessarily be preferred to that of a man who wrote what he saw at the time. but that aside, you would have to be sure exactly what north was talking about. Still, I think this was more a suggestion to check the article than to scrap it? Sandpiper 20:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"A primary source is a source is a source" is a naïve (though common) view of historical documents and what historians do. Historians must consider many factors in evaluating any given primary source. For example, in David Hackett Fischer's Washington's Crossing, he points out that General Howe's casualty reports are always undercounts (Howe apparently had his reasons for not being accurate). An amateur historian (such as a Wikipedian) might repeat Howe's deliberate undercounts at face value without understanding the context. It's not desirable for a Wikipedian to go poking around in primary documents that he or she has not had the broad reading needed to properly evaluate: that's original research, which we don't do here. Plus there's no need, since professional historians are on the job. Now, when two reputable, published, professional scholars are in disagreement, that's when our job here gets really fun, because we can report the disagreement. What we don't do is try to be historians ourselves in any field where the pros have published. (This process is somewhat different regarding Wikipedia articles about current events or popular culture, for example, where professional research might not be published, and Wikipedians can scour the web for primary sources to their heart's content.) --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Spain entering the war.

Spain participated by supplying munitions, not troops. The exception was a single expedition led out of Louisiana, but I don't recall enough about it to pretend I'm adding anything useful. Fearwig 03:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Black soldiers

I removed the following recent addition...

• NOTE: THE ABOVE STATEMENT [that more blacks fought on the Patriot side than on the Loyalist side] IS FALSE. THOUSANDS BLACK SOLDIERS FOUGHT FOR THE BRITISH SIDE, WHILE ONLY A FEW HUNDRED FOUGHT FOR THE AMERICAN CAUSE.

This might well be true, but it belongs on the talk page, not stuck in the article. I'll try to check it out if someone doesn't beat me to it. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The figure of 5,000 black Patriots and 1,000 black Loyalists comes from the link at the bottom of the article, "African-American soldiers in the Revolution". Some recent books have questioned this traditional estimate, though I believe they do not offer a revised estimate (Lengel's General George Washington, Raphael's Founding Myths). There are a number of works devoted to the topic if you look into it further. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 03:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the British army promised to free any Black slaves who fought for them, whilst of of course many slaves were made to fight for the Patriots, regardless of whether they agreed with the cause. If this is the case it would explain why many blacks took up the British offer. Grunners 09:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Need for a British Perspective

This article drastically needs a British perspective. At the moment, it is quite Amerocentric. I added the term "American Loyalists" to the template, because the Loyalists represented at least 15-20% of the population of the Thirteen Colonies. There is a specific reason why including both the British Empire and American Loyalists is not redundant. While Loyalists considered themselves and were perceived by others to be subjects of the British Empire, internationally, American Patriots were also subjects of the British Empire until the Treaty of Paris. For the same reason that we don't say that the American Civil War was a war between the United States and the United States, however, we differentiate between the USA (loyalists) and the CSA (rebels). Here we must differentiate between Patriots and Loyalists. During the Revolution, there were two types of colonists: those who were loyal to the British Crown and those who sought independence from it. We should not diminish the fact that the war was anot a universally-popular one; the Patriots were considered to be British subjects in rebellion by the international community (and by Loyalists). The Loyalists were also still Americans, in the sense of being inhabitants of the American colonies.

It should be made explicit that there were many "Americans" who did not support the War and who were loyal to the Crown.

Ideally, the template would indicate a war of Patriot Colonists versus the British Empire and Loyalist Colonists.--AaronS 01:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the very first paragraph of the "combatant" section states the percentage and number of Loyalists, differentiates quite clearly between American Loyalists and American Patriots, and calls the war a "civil war", everything you say above is already quite prominent and explicit in the article. Heck, I'll bet the article itself is your source for the percentage you quote. You may be right that the article needs additional British perspective, but you've yet to identify anything that is not already well covered. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 04:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is already well-covered in the article, then there should be no problem in adding a bit more specificity to the template. What is your objection, after all? The template serves as a very general summary of the war. The summary should not be so general that important information is excluded, and not so specific that it no longer is useful. If someone were to merely check the template in reading this article, they would be under the presumption that the war was fought between the colonists and the far away Great Britain. In reality, however, the war was fought amongst the colonists themselves as well as between the rebels and Great Britain. This should be explicit in the template.

Since you haven't really offered a clear objection, other than that my addition is "redundant" (I've already shown that it is not), I'm going to add "American Loyalists" back into the template.--AaronS 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything, actually. You agree that the Loyalists were part of the British Empire, but say that listing both "British Empire" and "Loyalists" is not redundant. Huh? Your version of the warbox creates the mistaken impression that the Loyalists were not part of the Empire, but something like allies of it. I daresay that misses the whole point of Loyalism, if not the war.

It's probably not worth belaboring, but your comparison to the American Civil War is also faulty: you write that we don't say that the war was fought between the United States and the United States. Of course not, the warbox at that article properly indicates that the war was fought between the previously established government (the United States) and the breakaway rebels (the Confederacy). And so the Revolution was fought between the established government (the British Empire) and the breakaway rebels (the American Revolutionaries), as the warbox here previously indicated.

If you feel it's important to list the Loyalists in the warbox, then the term "British Empire" needs to be replaced by Kingdom of Great Britain, piped (for reasons of concision) to Great Britain. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kevin. Looking at the American Civil War article, the warbox there probably isn't accurate. The War of Independence, after all, was a British civil war. The American Civil War article should have the United States versus the "Southern Rebels," or something to that extent, since the Confederacy was never recognized. So, I think that we've both got it wrong. The American Civil War article must be changed; otherwise, we would be obliged to characterize the War of Independence as a war between Great Britain and the United States, which I think we both agree would be silly.

I'm going to propose this change on the American Civil War discussion page.

Here I think the warbox should characterize the war as one between American Rebels (not Patriots, since there was no American patria, "patriot" is mainly a propaganda term, and "rebel" is the proper label, since they were rebelling against their government) and their allies and Great Britain and its allies. France is a significant enough ally of the rebels to be specified explicitly, and American Loyalists are a significant enough ally of Great Britain (yes, they were in fact British, but so were the rebels) to be listed explicitly.

The main reason why I think that this is necessary is because I do not think that the warbox, as it was before I edited it, properly demonstrated the fact that the War of Independence was not necessarily a popular war (especially not until it seemed like it could be successful) and that there were many colonists who remained loyal to Great Britain (and were forced to flee to Canada). It was, as you say, a civil war. Moreover, the way it was before made it seem as if the war was between "us," over here, and the British, over there.

Think of it this way: the American Civil War warbox would be terribly misleading if it listed the conflict as being between the United States and American Rebels (or even American Patriots, since the Confederates most certainly were Americans, and considered themselves to be citizens of the Confederate States of America!). Rather, it should be displayed as between the United States and Confederate or Southern Rebels.

Now does my request really seem all that unreasonable?--AaronS 00:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Kevin Myers, "Loyalists" is redundant, since they would be included in the term "British Empire". --JW1805 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring my argument as to why the redundancy doesn't matter. Perhaps you should address that before you revert my edit.--AaronS 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't quite agree with your point of view. Anyway, it may be better to put "Kingdom of Great Britain", "American Loyalists", allies. --JW1805 03:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Aaron's British view seems to be that this is a civil war. (Sorry if I've interpreted you incorrectly). IMHO we should not adopt that for the article as a whole. The wording in combatants is quite enough, thank you. If the rebels lose its a civil war, if they win its a revolution. This we have, for example, the English civil war, but the Glorious Revolution. Id say take loyalists out of the box. Lou I 18:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, well I'm British. I read the article, though not carefully enough to consider every detail. I am certainly not a historian, to comment on the details. However, the phrase 'American revolutionary war' is a new one to me. I was taught about the 'American war of independence'.

Next, it seems odd to me to view this as a war between the British Empire and Americans. My slightly hazy history did not really consider that we had an empire at that time. America was a colony. I don't know its legal staus, but I think it might have been regarded as just another part of the United Kingdom, nothing so grand as to be considered an empire. It may be that in retrospect this is now regarded as part of the rise of the British Empire, but certainly I was taught it as a war between the United Kingdom (very possibly in fact England really rather than the entire United Kingdom, this was a kingdom controlled by England) and americans. I still regard it this way. I looked at the article linked to 'British Empire, and found hardly a reference to India, which in many ways was the heart and soul of the British Empire and what I immediately associate with the phrase. Much of the rest was colonies (like America) which feel much more like parts of Britain than an outside Empire, but also which did not become important until later. The independent Scottish parliament was only dissolved in 1707, which was just another step in the process of creation of the core of the United Kingdom. I fancy America was just regarded as British subjects adventuring abroad, and this was how they regarded themselves? Possibly the 'empire' at this stage was more like a franchise to run a business. Maybe historians have a different view? This may not help much, but such history as I have heard here more recently seems of the view that the war was essentially a political balls up, that with sensible policies the americans had absolutely no interest in rebellion and would have been very happy (indeed preferred) to remain loyal subjects of the crown. There is a reference in the article to whigs and Tories, one of which is defined as loyalist and one patriot, yet these were (and one still is) British political parties forming competing governments of the UK. Sandpiper 20:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You get a lot of it right, Sandpiper. The colonists certainly viewed themselves as British subjects or Englishmen. There was no American national identity. At the time of the revolution, the oldest colony was not even 200 years old, and all of the culture and traditions of the colonies were, for the most part, borrowed from England. I don't agree with the maxim "if you lose, it's a civil war; if you win, it's a revolution." That just seems to be inherently biased. Are we going to ignore all of the people (argued to be a majority in many cases) who were loyal to the Crown? The American War of Independence, after all, was a war between Britons, not between Americans and Britons. To ignore the loyalists, and to pretend that it was not a civil war (i.e. a war within one nation), is to do a great disservice to history. I'm an American, but I think that it would be highly inaccurate to not make it clear that, at the time of this war, there was no such thing as an American. Perhaps an unbiased expert would like to chime in? --AaronS 21:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum: Please see the article on civil wars for why the distinction between "civil war" and "revolution" is arbitrary in this case, and therefore there should be as much neutrality as possible. If it were a war in India between Indians and Britons, then it would be a revolution. Since it was a war between people of the same nation, it is more likely a civil war, and its additional classification as a revolution would be arbitrary. Furthermore, please note that few governmental changes were made within the states; states and localities already had a large degree of autonomy, with the Crown's direct oversight already greatly diminished by the 1770s. The federation was not created until over a decade afterwards. --AaronS 21:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Points that should be looked into.

I feel that there needs to be more focus on the impact of French Intervention in the Revolutionary War which was the major turning point, and i feel the article would benefit from a greater explination of the motives behind the Rebellion . I think theres a tendancy by some to not look objectivly at the events but to rather propogate the American national myth hence 'patriots'. that said this isnt a critisism more a request Joey1986 21:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Some non-American references would certainly increase the accuracy and NPOV of this article, as well.--AaronS 21:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some non-American references" seems to indicate that they're aren't any, which is incorrect. (Avid readers of military history will recognize at least one of the British historians listed in the references.) As for "accuracy" problems, what exactly is inaccurate? The only inaccuracy I'm aware of in the article is the one recently introduced by you. :-)

As for Joey's points, keep in mind this is a "daughter" article of the main article American Revolution. As the introduction makes clear, this article is only about the military campaign; because of limited space, the main article discusses motives as well as the activities of the guys with wigs and quill pens.

The importance of the French intervention is highlighted in the introduction of the article -- in fact, the only battles currently mentioned in the introduction are the ones decisively influenced by the French; it's hard to get better billing than that. Much of the narrative of the land war does not mention France because France was not directly involved for years. If anything, the article currently makes France look too much like the cavalry in a Western movie, coming to the last-minute rescue in the final battle, because it overlooks major problems encountered by the Franco-American alliance in the years before Yorktown. This problem will be fixed when the naval section of the war gets properly written. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 04:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the discussion of the war could use more attention to the non-American aspects. Until I just added a brief mention, there was no discussion of the siege of Gibraltar at all. The discussion of the war in the Caribbean is limited to a link to the Battle of the Saintes article, but there was considerable Anglo-French naval conflict in the Caribbean for the last five years of the war. So there's definitely room for improvement on that front. john k 05:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

General James Potter

Someone inserted a little information about US General James Potter into the Harry Potter James and Lily Potter article, saying he was an american revolutionary war hero. I dumped the information into its own article. Does anyone know anything about him, or have a better view on whether he deserves an article or is mentioned anywhere else? If so, can anyone who knows about this subject sort him out? Sandpiper 13:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable guy. See here. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is "General James Potter" the Wikipedia convention? Shouldn't it be something like "James Potter (generaal)" or something like that? Hbdragon88 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Continental unit

I have started assembling a List of Continental Forces in the American Revolutionary War. This is not a straightforward task, so any help and input would be appreciated. I have also made a proposal for an infobox on the Talk page. --Leifern 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Patriot/ Loyalist

Despite the above section and discussion I am not convinced that Patriot is the correct choice. If anything Patriot refers more ably to the colonists who are usually termed loyalists.

Whilst Rebel may seem to be a bad label by many, these revolutionaries were rebelling. However you define what they were rebelling against. They were Rebels.

Well the King thought they were rebels. But they thought they were upholding the rights of all Englishmen to 'no taxation without representation.' That is the King was rebelling against the ancient constitution. They talked a lot about King Charles. :) Rjensen 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Said to a king: "Your Majesty, the peasants are revolting!"

King's response: "You said it! They stink on ice!"

I checked to see what terms the leading British historians of the War use. Lecky, Trevelyan, Christie and Black all prefer "American". That seems a reasonable enough solution. There is no ambiguity. The Loyalists did not consider themselves "Americans'--they called themselves "Englishmen" and after the war most left for Canada or Britain because they did not want to be Americans. Calling them Americans is an insult to them and POV. "American Revolutionaries" is unidiomatic--no one uses it and it sounds awkward. Let me add that the "colonies" ceased to exist in 1775 and became "states." Rjensen 08:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong that no one uses "American Revolutionaries": Black uses that term extensively, with and without the "American". He also uses "American" by itself, perhaps just as frequently, which is of course what most U.S. historians use. I don't think eminent Victorians like Lecky and Trevelyan are good yardsticks for modern terminology, to say the least. Plus, none of these writers wrote for the type of truly international audience that Wikipedia reaches, which means we have some additional considerations. Personally, I'd just use the terms Americans, Loyalists, and British, which is how this aritcle used to read, but international Wikipedians sometimes report that they find the term "American" to be ambiguous, which brings us back to where we began. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest it is rare indeed for a historian to use "American revolutionaries" as the preferred term. The Brits prefer "American." I just rechecked Black and he usually uses "American". I also just checked Piers Mackesy, Wars for America --it's online--and did a count. He prefers "American" (over 500 uses); he uses Loyalist (20 times), "Whig" 5 times and and never uses "revolutionary" when referring to Americans (he does use it for the French). Valentine's British bio of Lord Germain uses American over 100 times, and 'revolutionary' 5 times. Middlecauf has one of the most recent major stuidies. He uses "American" hundreds of times, and "revolutionaries" 6 times. So the word is not unused, it is just uncommon and not the preferred term.

In 1770s the term was used, in Britain, France and America, to refer to supporters of the new USA. It is certainly not ambiguous, and if anyone thinks so they should speak up. Rjensen 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Black has a new book on the Hanoverians, that you can search on Amazon. He uses "American revolutionaries" only once (p 129), and prefers American. In his "America As a Military Power: From the American Revolution to the Civil War" (2002) by Jeremy Black he uses revolutionary 8 times (using Google Book Search), and American 430 times.

See http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=vGkbn8vx3P4C&dq=american&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Djeremy%2Bblack%2Bamerica%2B%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a&pg=PP8&printsec=3&lpg=PP8&sig=v2bZwSTqEL3UlSNnJBKbBfymZGU Rjensen 23:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there's no doubt "American Revolutionaries" is not the most frequently used term: that was not the issue (as I understand it). The issue was: if "American" is ambiguous (as is written above, and which shows up on other pages like Talk:War of 1812), and "Patriot" POV, is "Revolutionaries" a good compromise? Perhaps we can instead use "American" and explain early on to readers that the word, as used in this article, refers to the Revolutionaries.

By the way, your google counting method doesn't distinguish between apples and oranges, and so none of your data above is really applicable. Every use of "American" does not refer to the Revolutionaries, since the word is also a geographic term. Uses of the word to describe the "American economy" or the "American coast" or the "American war" also show up in your total, skewing the results. And the relevant Jeremy Black book is War for America; any book that includes pre- or post-Revolutionary history will have lots of uses of the word "American" which are not relevant to the question at hand. If you could search War for America and compare uses of "Revolutionaries" with only those uses of "American" that refer to the American rebels, that would be a relevant and interesting bit of data. I'll bet he uses "American" more often, but he very frequently uses "Revolutionaries" (capitalized) to refer to the rebels under arms, which is why I suggested it as a compromise term. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"American" is the standard term used in Britain and America-- it is the preferred term in monographs, encyclopedia and surveys. The reason is that it exactly describes the political situation: people who supported the new United States of America were always called Americans (by friends and foes alike). The term "American" is a political term referring to the nation. The war was all about whether this new USA would be allowed to exist or would be crushed by the British. Therefore its supporters raised armies and fought--and that is what the article is all about. So let's use it. You need a very good reason for replacing it, it seems to me. It is not true that "rebel" or "patriot" is widely used. It is not true that there is any ambiguity. It is not true that mysterious unnamed people have intervened to veto the word. So let's go over the reasons again: WHY replace it?Rjensen 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "It is not true that mysterious unnamed people have intervened to veto the word." Incorrect. Some months ago, a user from the Netherlands removed every occurrance of the word "American" from the article, since readers outside the Anglosphere sometimes find that word ambigious. Your assertion that "it is not true that there is any ambiguity" simply means that you know what the word means to you; the goal then is to convey that understanding to international readers who don't agree with your assertion. I too prefer the term "American"; make it work and you'll hear no objections from me. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens--someone came in and removed American from the American revoltuion? That's close to deliberate vandalism--rather like the folks who insert the vulgar words in every article. Who is this guy and why did he do it? Did he explain his goals? Did he misunderstand something? An encyclopedia is supposed to educate people out of their ignorance, and we certainly want to help this fellow and not cater to his ignorance. I have lectured in Amsterdam on American history and nobody in the roomfull of scholars thought there was any ambiguity whatever. Rjensen 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, our audience is not a roomful of scholars! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I do indeed believe you. I watch about 100+ articles in history and maybe 50 in current events (and none in areas like science), and I would say that 50% or more of the "contributions" are either obscenities, or RV the obscenity. I consider that vandalism. Who uses Wiki has been much discussed recently on sources like H-WORLD and H-TEACH. College profs say that many/most of their students use it as a top source. Not many students are in the library; they dod their research here, and the editors have an obligation to help them. I think on the whole Wiki does a good job, except that the history articles are not nearly as good as the current events articles I watch.Rjensen 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I keep wanting to get away from Wikipedia for awhile to work on some other projects, but I'm always running into history articles that are so wrong that I feel compelled to do some reading in order to correct them. This is good for me, because I learn so much in the process, but it's a never ending trap, I tell ya! I think history articles on Wikipedia tend to be poor because so much of it is based on two suspect sources: amateur web sites, and half-forgotten stuff learned in high school. Additionally, people who don't read a lot of history tend not to have the experience to differentiate between what is reliable source for an encyclopdia, and what is not. While current events articles are easily researched on Google, much history information found via Google is crap; the good stuff is still at the library, as you know. I'm confident Wikipedia will improve this situation in time, but we've got a long way to go. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Professor J R Pole (in Companion to the American Revolution 2004), is an eminent authority and he loves the word revolutionary. As in era, period, mind, generation, cause , thought, beliefs, agenda.... I used Google.Book to get these examples. But NOT when talking of armies. ( he uses American armies 11 times, and revolutionary armies zero times). As I say, it's not idiomatic to talk about Revolutionary armies, navies, regiments, etc. Another issue lurking here. Some people seem to ge geographical determinists. They think terms like American, German, British, French are related ONLY to geographical areas tou can see in an atlas. Since you have both USA and North America, there is a ceratin ambiguity in using the atlas for the word American. But in fact the terms have geographic, ethnic, cultural and political components, and how they mix is a very complex issue. The riots in France this year were about, who is French? It was not in dispute where the rioters lived or were born–the atlas cannot help much in explaining the riots. In 1776 the British had a world empire and to be British meant to ne loyal to the Empire. Check out United Empire Loyalists. To be American meant to have allegiance to the new USA. That could happen if you lived in Paris (like Franklin) or even London. And Europeans could and did come over to become Americans, permanently and fight for the USA. (Like John Paul Jones, or von Steuben). Rjensen 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

States, not colonies

All the "colonies" vanished in 1775-76 when the Brits removed all their colonial officials. Only in Georgia, for a while, did they even attempt to ressetablish a colonial government. All the former colonies became states and should be called such. The war was NOT fought between Britain and some colonies. It was fought with the United States of America, a new country. Rjensen 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That last statement is the old fallacy of reading history backwards. The creation of the new country was a consequence of the outbreak of the war. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 07:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No fallacy. There was very little fighting before Jul 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence meant this was not a squabble that could be compromised--that it would be a full scale war. Once that happened the British made it a real war sending a huge fleet and army to capture New York, and the fighting began in earnest. France would not have intervened in a squabble aroiund Boston--the US had to declare independence first. Once France was involved it became a major world war.Rjensen 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The War in America versus the wider war

I note that the current "to do list" proposes reducing the "War at Sea" section in favour of a short summary paragraphs without headings. The section is poorly constructed, but reducing it will relegate the primary war efforts of the most powerful participants (Britain and France) after 1778 to an even lower status than they currently have in the article. I raises the issue of what the war was about (and, hence, what this article is about).

• For the Americans, the war was a clear cut revolution and struggle for Independence (with most in favour and some against).
• For the British, the war was initially a struggle to retain (or regain) the Americans' loyalty. But from 1778 it became a far more complex war with France and later Spain and the Netherlands. The war with France and Spain soon dominated British concerns, with a significant reduction of effort in America (where arguably the struggle had already been lost after Saratoga).
• Similarly, for France, Spain and the Netherlands, the war in America was something of a side show. France and Spain were principally seeking revenge for their defeat in the Seven Years War, and their strategy focused on taking British possessions in Europe (Minorca, Gibraltar etc.), the West Indies (Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, Jamaica etc.) and the East Indies. While French support for the United States was of great importance, it was not the primary aim of the French war effort.

In short, if the "War at Sea", or perhaps "the wider war", is not worthy of significant mention in this article on the "American Revolutionary War", perhaps the wider war does deserve an article of its own under "American War of Independence". (For comparison, see the way the French and Indian War has evolved as a separate article to the Seven Years War. JimmyTheOne 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)