Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Infobox designation of German Soldiers

Designation as "mercenaries" has been changed to "auxiliaries", by XavierGreen I believe. I thoroughly understand that the contemporary King of England (oops Britain..oops UK of Britain and Ireland..oops etc...) had Hanoverish relatives and, not being a historian, I admit this may have brought with it certain formalized family ties. Unfortunately, one must characterize the miscellaneous minor German states represented as either being at war with the nascent US or not. The word "auxiliary" is a cop out--it makes me remember the Gallic wars (in HS Latin) and Caesar's cavalry. It also brings up again folk here with an agenda. If you wish, you might consider pushing them down into the co-belligerent category. But what you would call them there is still a problem. Perhaps just "Organized brigades of German troops whose feudal Princes had been paid to send them to support George III's war". Something tells me there is a shorter word for that...but I cannot recall. Feel free to reword as you see fit. Juan Riley (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Historians all call the Hessians mercenaries and state that their princes did NOT declare war on USA or France or Netherlands. (That would be a dangerous move indeed.) They were neutrals. Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

They were not mercenaries, that is an American-POV statement. Most of the states that provided troops did so through formal treaties of alliance with the United Kingdom. The forces sent were national government troops of the various principalities in question. It was an extremely common practice at the time. They fit the very definition of what an auxiliary is, real Machiavelli's "the Prince" for further information. This issue has been hashed over multiple times in lengthy discussions, i suggest reading this pages archives.XavierGreen (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@JuanRiley, the shorter word for that is "auxiliary". Rjensen is right, the Hessians and Brunswickers were never formally at war. Auxiliaries in this context is just the term used to mean formed bodies of troops loaned out by their governments, as opposed to individually recruited mercenaries. Sources tend to use both in regard to the Hessians, but the latter is probably more technically correct and it helps distinguish between hired formed units and individual volunteers who might be classed as mercenaries such as Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben or Frederick Haldimand.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You have made a laughing stock of yourself by equating Steuben and the German soldiers hired by Britain. Unfortunately I know you will never realize this. Juan Riley (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mercenaries are soldiers who fight for money. Today that is done by individuals or private corporations, and not by governments. However in the 18th century it was standard practice for the smaller German states to rent out their regiments to make a handsome profit for the prince. They were in combat for profit -- not their own personal profit but the prince's profit. Indeed that was the way they balanced their budgets. That makes the term mercenary quite appropriate. Please note the title of the recent major scholarly book on the subject: The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform Under Frederick II, 1760-1785 (2003) by Professor Charles Ingrao Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't personally describe von Steuben as a mercenary, but you'll find plenty of RS which do discuss him in that context. As to the Hessians I don't think most modern historians consider them to be personally morally objectionable, and quite a few deserted and served in the Continental Army. Much of the outrage in 1775-76 was over the deployment of Hessian troops against British subjects, which touched on earlier controversial disputes about Hessian garrisons stationed in Britain during the 1740s and 1750s.

The armies who fought this war were all pretty cosmopolitan. Bering a mercenary then didn't have the same stigma as now and it's hardly surprising that most of the participants, with their manpower problems, had to supplement their armies with foreign fighters. Even the French who had a very large native population (around 3 x the size of Britain) had an army that was at least a fifth foreign-born. The distinction I was making was between individual or very small groups of mercenaries, who don't really belong in the infobox, and large-scale significant forces of auxiliaries (such as the Hessians) who do. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions or mainstream historical consensus?

Are the following consensuses of mainstream historians or opinions? -some unnamed German states were "at war" with the rebellious colonies in North America -these states were "allies" of britain in this war -"Ireland" was similarly at war with those colonies and could be considered a independent nation (e.g., actions not dictated by UK) I can understand people having opinions contrary to historitcal consensus. They should take it to Face Book. Juan Riley (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are errors. War is an act that gets declared, and there was no declaration by any German state or Ireland. (the German states were neutrals who hired out soldiers.) Ireland proclaimed loyalty to the king but did not declare war against France etc. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Since when does war have to be declared, see undeclared war. I note also that the united kingdom never declared war on the united states during this conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

From perspective of UK, it was attempting to subdue a rebellion, not waging war against another state. However, it is odd to describe Ireland or any German states as being at war with the US. However, in some contexts they might be considered as co-belligerents. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether one can make an argument for the Germans as allies or Ireland as belligerents etc...,but whether these are mainstream historical opinions (not ours). Should the decision be that they are not...then they don't belong in the infobox (at least as currently stated). Perhaps a paragraph on page 99 of the article (subject to discussion). Juan Riley (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Riley is right. The consensus of the RS is to OMIT the German states, Ireland, and the East India company as belligerents. Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While we await a formal discussion on, at first, details in the infobox, I took the opportunity to boldly prime the pump by reverting "The Thirteen" USA to just the USA and replacing the articles of confederacy link to the one for USA. Shall we start there? Juan Riley (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, this entire discussion is based on a mistaken premise. There is no requirement that combatants listed in the infobox be sovereign states, merely participants. Nor is there a requirement that combatants need to be formally at war, which naturally would be extremely difficult in infoboxes covering rebellions, civil wars or most modern wars. The usual format is demonstrated by a quick glance at articles of either historical N. American wars (King Phillip's War, King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War, French and Indian War) or more recent conflicts (Iraq War, Syrian Civil War). To do otherwise in either this or these other articles would be a radical and rather unworkable change to the way infoboxes are drawn up.

Again, as a compromise I'd suggest listing the four groups under discussion (Hessians, Hanover, Ireland and Loyalists) with a double-indent under Britain to show they served on the British side. That's fairly common practice in other articles. If there's any dispute about the involvement of forces from these various groups I can supply sources about their participation in the war. Debates about constitutional status and formal declarations of war are really wandering from the point. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Let us then start with Ireland (to be specific): historical consensus as a combatant/belligerent? I of course would say no. I am hoping not to get an essay in response...just your answers to whether in mainstream historical opinion is Ireland considered or not to be such? Note again: if there is an argument to be made for such but it is not mainstream...well there could be a paragraph on it. That is a separate decision. Juan Riley (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ireland: the great majority of RS do not include Ireland as a major player. Its parliament declared loyalty to the king (it did not revolt until 1798), but it did not wage war against France spain or Netherlands. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Shall I call this as 2 to 1 to eliminate Ireland as a belligerent in the info box? Or wait a few days? Juan Riley (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

you can call it now after 5 days discussion Rjensen (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Ireland removed from infobox. (I fear to be revisited again. Should it be so, I suggest folks google "The Drapier Letters and the American revolution". At least this should give them pause.) Next up: the Germans. After perusing the literature, it would seem that "auxiliaries" may be the best compromise here. An argument can be made for "mercenaries" though certainly not "allies". Thoughts? Juan Riley (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The legal/diplomatic role was mercenary (see Ingrao, Charles W. The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform Under Frederick II, 1760-1785. Cambridge UP, 2003; (see also http://www.jstor.org/stable/41157873). the military role was auxiliary but this box is focused on legal/diplomatic status. Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have changed "german allies" to "German auxiliaries" for the moment as allies has no real support. I have also changed the WP link from Germans in the American Revolution(which covers ethnic Germans also fighting on the US side) to Hessian (soldiers). I have also put this below the co-belligerent line. Thoughts? objections? before we go on to other things? Juan Riley (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I'd point out that consensus isn't established by voting. Nor is there any deadline.

Infoboxes are comprehensive. To demonstrate that Ireland doesn't belong in it you need to use RS to demonstrate that a) Ireland wasn't in any way a distinct entity (and note again infoboxes include colonies, collections of colonies, dependencies, distinct militias, insurgency groups etc.) b) that Ireland was not remotely involved in the war.

For Ireland's existence as a separate Kingdom I presume we can take it for granted that Ireland was not part of Britain, but RS are available if need be. As for for Ireland's participation in the war: it participated in both the initial stage of the American War (1775-78):

• Keenan. Eighteenth Century Ireland."In October 1775 Parliament reconvened after the summer break. Despite patriot opposition, Harcourt was able to secure Irish parliamentary support for the American War of Independence, and he gained permission to send 4,000 troops for service abroad"

Like Britain it came onto a full war footing with the entry of the Bourbons. See any number of sources describing 1778 and the French war including:

• Dickinson Britain and the American Revolution
• Garnham. The Militia in Eighteenth-Century Ireland.
• Hayton & Bergin. The Eighteenth-Century Composite State
• O'Connell. Irish Politics and Social Conflict in the Age of the American Revolution
• Various chapters in Jeffrey & Bartlett (ed.) A Military History of Ireland

These are all mainstream, specialist sources. And that's rather the tip of the iceberg. And when it comes to the infobox, that's all that's needed for inclusion. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cornwallis, let me point out that your very first argument brings up the Russel Teapot logical fallacy: It is you (and perhaps a few others) that perversely wish to list Ireland as a co belligerent and thus it up to you to so convince others that this is mainstream historical opinion. Simply put: Did Ireland have an army or a navy that were fighting the Americans or the French etc in this war? (And please do not say there were Irish in the British army.) And as far as your Harcourt reference: Harcourt was a British lord currently serving as the British government appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Hmmm. However, I do not wish to start a discussion of amusing historical details and OR. Juan Riley (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've supplied a selection of sources (a sample of many I'd add) which present mainstream views of noted historians of 18th century Ireland as is obvious to anyone familiar with the subject. As the RS I've supplied detail Ireland had a separate Irish Army establishment (funded by the Dublin Parliament), a separate militia, and separate fencibles. The onus is now on you (as the person who wishes to remove Ireland from the article) to present sources that Ireland was either not a distinct entity or that it was neutral during the war. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the basic criteria for infobox inclusion. We list colonies, dependencies (etc.) which were involved in the war. You may think that Ireland is or was part of Britain, but that is your personal opinion.

Which sources specifically say that Ireland was not an entity, and not involved in the war? Not only have you not presented any, you don't seem to have even consulted any. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

my reading of the RS is that they make it clear that Ireland in the 1770s was a puppet kingdom totally controlled by the government in London, Whereby King George and the senior Englishman in his cabinet along with the Englishman who was the Viceroy made all the major decisions. They controlled the Irish Parliament, and the mention of its support for the war are misleading: it expressed its loyalty to the crown and promised not to join the Americans in revolt. in 1782, as the war ended, however, Irish politicians took control of the Irish parliament -- but that was too late to have any effect on the war. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Which RS state this please? I respect the fact that you're very learned, but I don't think you're that familiar with this particular topic (hence your original assertion that Ireland was part of Britain or that Ireland was neutral against the Bourbons). I'll say again that there are numerous sources that cover Ireland's participation in the war. I can cite more of them if necessary, but it seems rather superfluous.

I'll also say again that "Independence", isn't a criteria of infobox inclusion (and even then your arguments that the Kingdom of Ireland isn't separate are rather OR). We include, for instance, New France or the American colonies in the French and Indian War despite their crown-appointed Governors. The nub of this is whether Ireland participated militarily 1775-83, which RS that cover Ireland clearly indicate it did. To be absolutely honest I can't understand that this is so controversial. It certainly isn't amongst Irish historians. There are lots of very contentious articles on WP (often about Irish history) and this isn't one.

The Irish Parliament voted in 1775 to send troops abroad to fight the American rebellion. And they subsequently agreed to send further reinforcements. As a number of RS indicate, the Dublin Parliament was considerably more difficult to control than the London one (and this is nonetheless an attempt to apply a "democracy test" which isn't a requirement of infobox inclusion). When France entered the war, the Irish Volunteers were formed to resist invasion. Later Dublin Castle raised units of fencibles. The argument against Ireland's inclusion in the infobox is based on constitutional arguments that are irrelevant. We can get into a very detailed discussion on Molyneux, Grattan and composite monarchies but that is beside the point. Ireland's politicians of whatever stamp considered it to be at war with France.

Not that this matters (as this discussion concerns state institutions and military units) but most accounts suggest fighting the war enjoyed majority support amongst the Irish population both Protestants (in spite of the Patriots who felt a natural sympathy with the American Patriots) and Catholics (who generally did not). To be sure some Jacobites naturally turned to France once they entered, but they were by this stage a distinct minority.

I actually find it astonishing that people are still arguing this. Fair enough when you thought Ireland was part of Britain, but you must admit that was a mistake. Putting them as a double indent under Britain seems a decent compromise. It's what other articles do with dependencies, crown colonies, auxiliaries (etc.) We even include "puppet states", although I've never once seen Ireland referred to by that term in RS. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lord Cornwallis mentions the famous The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century but fails to note that chapter 11 is all about Ireland inside the British Empire. It certainly does not treat Ireland as an independent country outside of the British Empire. No historian does that. my argument all along is that Ireland in the 1770s was in no way independent of England, which was in full charge. in the Viceroy was not a figurehead during the 1770s he was the dominant person in Dublin, and he reported directly to the Prime Minister in London. His government was in no sense the government of an independent kingdom. Rjensen (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is, though, rather amusing that the argument for Ireland as a co-belligerent is being made by a screen-namesake of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during the '98 rebellion. It is almost as if the intention is to make the argument absurd.Juan Riley (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to make the issue clear, Lord Cornwallis quotes references (some or most more than a century old and suspiciously primary) to support his argument that (a) Ireland on or about 1776 was an independent state entity and (b) said state entity via various Irish parliamentary votes supported Britain's actions to put down the American rebellion (or sometimes to fight the French when they jumped in?) and (c) thus (a)+(b)=co-belligerent. Can anyone here please give me a better example of OR? Juan Riley (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of Ships

The infobox somewhat disingenuously reports the US as having 53 ships, with no indication of whether these were rowboats or frigates. Probably because in the context of naval warfare in the 18th century, ships of the line were all-important, and the Americans had none. While I realize that it is of the utmost importance to maximize the American contribution to the war at the expense of all other participants, it would be nice to compare apples to apples. The figures given for the navies of France and Britain are for ships of the line only. The note that the American figure includes all ships used in the war is handy, but a less biased version would either do the same for the French and British fleets or only represent the peak strengths. In an afternoon's worth of searching I've seen estimates of between 36 and 129 ships of the line for Britain. There was a relatively large difference between e.g. the number of ships in commission, and the number fit for active service. Lord Sandwich was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, and responsible for keeping Parliament updated on navy strength. He's probably the most reliable primary source on the matter, and it may be worth citing him directly given the disagreement of secondary sources.

• The British Navy and the State in the Eighteenth Century, Clive Wilkinson, p. 210, gives 73 ships of the line in 1778, and 83 ships of the line in 1780 (as Sandwich's estimate)
• N.A.M. Rodgers. The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2004 has tabular appendices for naval strengths, giving 117 ships of the line on p. 608 for years 1775 and 1780, but a total of 129 first through fourth rate ships on p. 615 for the year 1778.
• The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War By David Syrett, p. 15, gives 36 ships of the line in 1777 (as Sandwich's estimate) which may be referring only to the Western Squadron.

Further research may be needed to get an accurate number for the peak war strength of each belligerent, but in any case having an actual citation for the number used would be an improvement. The American strength should probably be revised to read, "zero ships of the line, 53 smaller vessels" (almost all of which were sunk or captured during the course of the war). For the record, I don't think anyone could argue that the American privateers were not impactful, especially in the early stages of the conflict, but while they were a credible threat to merchant shipping, their strategic effect was pretty negligible — and the infobox is supposed to give a picture of the overall strategic forces. 67.160.133.226 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Many faulty claims about the strengths and weaknesses of the combatants

The Americans had a large prosperous population

The population of the colonies was 2.8 million, that of Britain and Ireland 12.6 million.

• Still fairly large for the time.

The Irish population played a very small role. The British population was more like 6 million, and Britain lacked an effective recruiting system to mobilize its potential soldiers. The Americans had a very good mobilization system that made their smaller population much more effective. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

that depended not on imports but on local production for food and most supplies, while the British were mostly shipped in from across the ocean. The British faced a vast territory far larger than Britain or France, located at a far distance from home ports.

Yet the fact of the matter is that the British army was much better supplied than Washington's. See page 183. [1]

• This doesn't change the fact that the US depended on local food production, or that the British shipped in their supplies.

Most of the Americans lived on farms distant from the seaports—the British could capture any port but that did not give them control over the hinterland.

When they captured Savannah and Charleston the British did in fact rapidly gain control of the hinterland of those colonies. And when they captured New York they gained control of New Jersey temporarily.

When the British captured Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Yorktown, they failed to control the hinterland (The one exception was Long Island). Savannah had very little hinterland. Charleston is a more interesting case – the British set up a series of forts In the hinterland that were eventually abandoned or overrun by the Americans, one by one. Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

They were on their home ground, had a smoothly functioning, well organized system of local and state governments

This directly contradicts the preceding paragraph which includes the statement "The state governments were themselves brand new and officials had no administrative experience."

• They may have been inexperienced, but this doesn't necessarily preclude their functioning well. Find a source.

The American officials had extensive experience in local government, which is where most of the action took place. They also had a great deal of legal experience, and one of the main functions of the state government was setting up a legal and constitutional system for each state, which was done quite well. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

and internal lines of communications

What internal lines of communication? The colonies were an elongated strip of land.

• They still had internal lines of communication. Are you sure you understand the concept?

They had a long-established system of local militia, previously used to combat the French and Native Americans

It is a known fact that the militia performed very poorly in the French and Indian war.

• It still existed and had fought in the war, regardless of how it performed.

Motivation was a major asset. The Patriots wanted to win

The militia fought very well in the French and Indian wars. Most important, they learned how to organize, feed, drill, and march soldiers = skills very much needed and used during the Revolution. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well duh.

• Why bother bringing this up as an issue then?

over 200,000 fought in the war

Implausible figure, the size of the Continental Army never exceeded 50,000 at any point, and was usually around 35,000. More realistic estimates are 100,000-150,000. [2]

The British expected the Loyalists to do much of the fighting; they did much less than expected.

Considering that the British never controlled more than 10% of the white population, the number of loyalist provincial troops was quite large.

• They could still, and may have done, less than the British expected. I don't actually know.

The British made a major strategic blunder in assuming that would be far more loyalists in arms that were indeed possible. I think the reason was that they fell for the false propaganda issued by the loyalists to the effect that the great majority of Americans were loyal to the king. Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Compared to the Americans, the British had no major allies, and only had troops provided by small German states to bolster the small British Army

This doesn't explain their failure before 1778, when the Patriots had no allies either.

• It's still a fact.

The patriots did have allies in 1776-77 as the French were secretly providing large amounts of munitions. The refusal of every major European power to support Britain was one of the great diplomatic failures in British history. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

At the onset of the war, the British Army was less than 48,000 strong worldwide, and suffered from a lack of effective recruiting.

Yet the very next year they sent an army to America at least equal to the entire Continental Army. The total British establishment was 150,000 at peak strength, the Continental army was usually only around 35,000. "The British consistently provided their commanders with more regulars and military supplies than Washington and his subordinates had." p. 183

• Again, it's still valid. The two do not preclude each other.

Although its officer and non-commissioned officer corps were relatively professional and experienced, this professionalism was diluted because wealthy individuals lacking military experience could purchase commissions and promotions. As a consequence, inexperienced officers sometimes found their way into positions of high responsibility.

The Patriot army was far worse off in terms of inexperienced officers.

• It's still a fact.

Distance was also a major problem for the British. Although the Royal Navy was the largest and most experienced in the world at the time, it sometimes took months for troops to reach North America, and orders were often out of date because the military situation on the ground had changed by the time they arrived.

The war was not micromanaged from London to that extent, the local Commander in chief directed military operations and could calculate when the troops would arrive.

• They couldn't calculate; there were too many variables and the communications were too bad.

Additionally, the British had logistical problems whenever they operated away from the coast; they were vulnerable to guerilla attacks on their supply chains whenever they went far inland.

The British did a very bad job of calculating when support would arrive at Saratoga and Yorktown. The result was two of their three combat armies were captured with hardly a battle. Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a single instance where British operations were halted by guerilla attacks on their supply lines.

• They were still vulnerable, whether it occurred or not.
  • Saratoga Was a famous example--Burgoyne was out of supplies, and attempted a desperate raid on Vermont farms that failed. He could not retreat to Canada because he would starve on the way. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The army suffered from mediocre organisation in terms of logistics, food supplies were often bad and the sparse land of America offered little in the way of finding reliable substitutes.

Once again: "The British consistently provided their commanders with more regulars and military supplies than Washington and his subordinates had." p. 183

• That could just mean that the American army was even worse. It's still a valid point.

At the onset of the war, the British had around 8,000 men stationed in North America, however these were required to cover an area that stretched from northern Canada to Florida, a distance of almost 2,000 miles (3,200 km).

Since they were subsequently heavily reinforced, why does this matter?

• It's still a fact.

The lack of soldiers meant the British governors were quickly overwhelmed in 12 of the 13 colonies-- only in Boston did they have enough men to control the city, and As soon as possible he Americans obtained of artillery, Boston was untenable and the British had to evacuate it. The main reason the loyalists were unable to mobilize forces was that the patriots controlled 90% or so of the population in 1775-76 And that was because the British did not have enough soldiers to support its governors and its loyalists. That stemmed from a British misinterpretation of what the American psychology was – they thought a whiff of grape would disburse an unruly mob, and never understood the depth of the opposition they faced. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As the colonies had not been united before the war, there was no central area of strategic importance.

The Hudson valley and Chesapeake region were universally recognized as areas of central strategic importance.

• Hardly universally, especially compared to European countries with highly centralized bureaucracies and industry focused in a few areas.

In European conflicts, the capture of a capital city often meant the end of the war; however in America, when the British seized key cities such as New York, Philadelphia or Boston—or Washington D.C. in the War of 1812 thirty years later—the war continued unabated.

That's because in European conflicts if you captured the capital it means you probably already destroyed the bulk of your opponents forces. Howe on the other hand let Washington escape destruction after the Battle of Brandywine.

• It's still a fact.

they lacked the sufficient numbers to both defeat the Americans on the battlefield and simultaneously occupy the captured areas. It was not unusual for the Americans to suffer a string of defeats, only to have the British retreat because they could not occupy the captured land.

When did this happen exactly? It seems to be something made up out of thin air. In reality the British always captured territory whenever they destroyed or chased away the Patriot armies protecting it--as in New Jersey in 1776 or South Carolina in 1780. The reason Howe failed to capture territory when he was at Philadelphia is because he refused to destroy Washington's army protecting it, not because he didn't have enough troops to occupy it.

Despite strong Loyalist support, these troops were often displaced by Patriot militia when British regulars were not in the area, demonstrated at battles such as Kings Mountain.

There is no evidence to support this claim, except the outcome of one battle which was unrelated to population protection.

The manpower shortage became critical when France, Spain and the Netherlands entered the war, as the British were spread across several theatres worldwide, when before they were concentrated only in America.

This ignores the utter collapse of the Patriot finances and war effort after 1778 when they couldn't obtain supplies. The Continental Army actually shrunk more than the British Army did.

• It's still a fact.

The British indeed had good finances, But the allies including France the Netherlands and Spain had as much money to spend as the British. after 1777 the Royal Navy was outnumbered on the high seas. After Saratoga, the British abandoned any hope of retaking control of New England or the middle colonies. They gambled everything on control of the deep South-- they did capture Georgia and South Carolina, but failed very badly in North Carolina and Virginia. In part they did not have enough soldiers; there were no more Germans available, and the British refused to send soldiers who were needed to defend England from the possibility of French invasion. Furthermore the loss of control of the sea, meant that evacuation from Yorktown was impossible. With the loss of Yorktown, the King loss control of Parliament, and the British peace forces demanded an end to active hostilities against the Americans. The Americans did have severe budget problems, but they did not have to fight any major battles in New England or the North, and they could rely on the French army which was very well-funded. Rjensen (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

CJK (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Bulleted interpolations above by me, Rwenonah (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Still fairly large for the time.

Compared to what? The population of South America was 20,000,000 and British India 70,000,000. [3]

The Irish population played a very small role.

We need evidence for this.

The Irish establishment I believe was in the order of 30,000 soldiers, and with a few exceptions remained in Ireland to control that island. The British were worried about a French invasion, and a possible revolution in Ireland of the sort that did break out in 1798. In other words, Ireland was a liability rather than an asset for the British military. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The British population was more like 6 million

In 1780 the population Of England was 8.1 million and Scotland 1.4 million. [4]

Britain lacked an effective recruiting system to mobilize its potential soldiers. The Americans had a very good mobilization system that made their smaller population much more effective.

Maybe, although by 1780 the British had mobilized 150,000 regulars about four times the size of the Continental Army in 1777.

This doesn't change the fact that the US depended on local food production, or that the British shipped in their supplies.

True, but saying that without context makes it sound like the British were handicapped compared to the American Patriots when they were not.

When the British captured Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Yorktown, they failed to control the hinterland

In the cases of Boston and Yorktown the British were making no effort to engage in offensive operations. In the case of New York they did briefly overrun New Jersey and in the case of Philadelphia Howe refused to decisively engage Washington's army which was protecting the hinterland.

The British did not have enough soldiers to operate in the hinterland. London would not come up with the manpower despite its much larger population base. Again and again they swallow the argument that the loyalists would rise up and provide the numbers that were needed. That never happened. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Savannah had very little hinterland.

Georgia had a back country which was briefly overrun after Savannah fell.

Charleston is a more interesting case – the British set up a series of forts In the hinterland that were eventually abandoned or overrun by the Americans, one by one.

Yes, the point is that they did overrun the hinterland after Charleston fell, they only lost it after Cornwallis abandoned the province.

yes--That is to say that Cornwallis did not have enough soldiers to control both South Carolina and North Carolina. London had the money, but it did not have the manpower to win the war. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

They may have been inexperienced, but this doesn't necessarily preclude their functioning well.

It is a well known fact that the state governments often failed to contribute the necessary materials for the war effort.

Well the Americans lacked money it is true-- but they did have lots of volunteers which the British lacked.

They still had internal lines of communication.

Please elaborate, I'm not sure what you are referring to.

The interior road system was about as speedy as taking a boat. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The militia fought very well in the French and Indian wars.

The British did not feel that the militia fought very well. "As a part-time citizen army, the militia was naturally not a well-disciplined, cohesive force comparable to the professional army of the age. Criticism of the militia was frequent." [5]

The British made a major strategic blunder in assuming that would be far more loyalists in arms that were indeed possible. I think the reason was that they fell for the false propaganda issued by the loyalists to the effect that the great majority of Americans were loyal to the king.

The British could only conduct open recruiting in the areas that their troops controlled--Long Island, Manhattan, Georgia, and South Carolina which combined contained less than 10% of the white population. By contrast the patriots could recruit in over 90% of the white population.

Since the Americans controlled 90% of the population, they needed only a small army for garrison duty. If the British plan to do garrison work, as they did in New York City, it would tie down a large fraction of their combat Army. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The British did a very bad job of calculating when support would arrive at Saratoga and Yorktown. The result was two of their three combat armies were captured with hardly a battle.

Yes, but the calculating was not done at London.

Germain was In charge of calculating the strategy and he was a miserable failure-- for example he neglected to send timely messages To keep track of what was going on in late 1777 Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hardly universally, especially compared to European countries with highly centralized bureaucracies and industry focused in a few areas.

This is the 18th century we are talking about, industry was of little importance.

In part they did not have enough soldiers; there were no more Germans available, and the British refused to send soldiers who were needed to defend England from the possibility of French invasion.

But my point is that the Patriots also were lacking in soldiers late in the war as their finances collapsed. Washington only had 8,000 effectives in 1781.

CJK (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Washington had the French army & Navy in 1781. Perhaps London overlooked that?

The population of the US at the time was sufficiently large compared to Britain's, especially with Ireland essentially removed from the equation, that there wasn't a significant disadvantage incurred. Second, the British were at a disadvantage relative to the Patriots, because to achieve parity in supplies, they had to go to huge lengths of shipping in supplies, while the Americans had easily available local supplies. This was a huge diversion of resources and effort that the British had to make and the Americans did not. The fact that the British ended up better supplied simply shows this was successful. Thirdly, industry and bureaucracy was massively important, especially if focused in only a few areas as in Europe. For example, the capture of Paris in the Napoleonic Wars (or WWII for that matter) essentially forced France out of the war. The US had no comparable areas. Finally, the militia, regardless of how effective it proved earlier, was a huge asset for the Patriots in this war. The British were, if anything, led to underestimate it due to the French and Indian Wars. Rwenonah (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The British did not have enough soldiers to operate in the hinterland.

This is sort of like saying that the Allies didn't have enough troops to occupy Germany before 1945. The Patriot armies first had to be defeated or chased away in order to occupy territory, a preliminary step the British failed to accomplish in the North due to the bungling of Howe. If that had been accomplished the British would have had no problem operating in the hinterland, which would eventually be handed off to locally recruited loyalist forces.

Again and again they swallow the argument that the loyalists would rise up and provide the numbers that were needed. That never happened.

This is because in the North the British never defeated or dispersed the Patriot armies controlling the population. That would have been a necessary preliminary step to mobilizing the loyalists.

That is to say that Cornwallis did not have enough soldiers to control both South Carolina and North Carolina.

But he didn't need to control North Carolina to control South Carolina. And the reason he didn't take North Carolina wasn't due to the lack of troops but the lack of supplies in the interior of the state.

Well the Americans lacked money it is true-- but they did have lots of volunteers which the British lacked.

And those volunteers constantly dwindled as the war dragged on. Again, Washington only had 8,000 troops in 1781.

Since the Americans controlled 90% of the population, they needed only a small army for garrison duty. If the British plan to do garrison work, as they did in New York City, it would tie down a large fraction of their combat Army.

They heavily garrisoned New York City to protect it from attacks from the Patriot army, not simply for the sake of garrisoning it. Hypothetically, if the British cleared a province they would have maintained only a small garrison while moving the bulk of their army to other tasks.

The population of the US at the time was sufficiently large compared to Britain's, especially with Ireland essentially removed from the equation, that there wasn't a significant disadvantage incurred.

The population of the US was 2.8 million inclusive of slaves, that of Great Britain was 9.5 million. That is a larger advantage for Britain than the Union had in the American Civil War. Oh, and the population of India was 70,000,000 yet the British had little trouble conquering them.

Second, the British were at a disadvantage relative to the Patriots, because to achieve parity in supplies, they had to go to huge lengths of shipping in supplies, while the Americans had easily available local supplies. This was a huge diversion of resources and effort that the British had to make and the Americans did not. The fact that the British ended up better supplied simply shows this was successful.

Which proves my point that it ended up not being much of a disadvantage at all. It makes little difference whether a soldier's rations came from a local farmer or from a ship, so long as it was there.

For example, the capture of Paris in the Napoleonic Wars (or WWII for that matter) essentially forced France out of the war.

That had nothing to do with the industry of Paris, it was that it proved Napoleon was incapable of repulsing the invasion of France. Howe captured Philadelphia but a) let Burgoyne's army get captured and b) let Washington escape destruction, which encouraged the rebels to fight on.

Finally, the militia, regardless of how effective it proved earlier, was a huge asset for the Patriots in this war.

No doubt it was in New England, but you have to remember outside of New England the war was far from popular and the contributions of the militia were often pitiful.

The interior road system was about as speedy as taking a boat.

That isn't describing interior lines of communication.

The Americans used their interior lines of communication with mixed results. They used it to invade Canada, which was a disaster. Washington used it to defend Philadelphia, but he lost anyway. They use it to destroy the Indian threat in upstate New York in 1777. The Southern campaign of 1780-81 relied entirely on interior lines, and the great achievement was to move both the French army in Washington's army from the New York-Rhode Island area down to Yorktown without the British interfering at all. Indeed, British intelligence was so bad that headquarters in New York City was unaware of these major movements. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Germain was In charge of calculating the strategy and he was a miserable failure

Germain was deceived by Howe, who completely abandoned Burgoyne against Germain's wishes. That wasn't Germain's fault, it was solely Howe's. CJK (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As Roberts (2010) notes, "Basically, Germain left Howe to his own devices; he was reluctant to tell Howe what to do." Who's in charge here? nobody! That's how you lose entire armies. Washington was not so good on the day of battle but his strategic planning was far superior to that of Germain. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

He was reluctant to tell Howe what to do because he realized he couldn't micromanage the war from 3,000 miles away and he couldn't conceive Howe would be so inept as to ignore the obvious. But he did make perfectly clear in a letter to Carleton, which Howe received a copy of on June 5, that "the most speedy junction of the two armies should be effected." [6] Why did Howe ignore this?

Basically the problem is that the article is implying that a British victory faced insurmountable structural difficulties, when in reality the British failures in 1777 and 1781 were entirely due to the abject bungling of their leadership. This is also the opinion of the U.S. Army. If Britain can control 70,000,000 people in India you can't honestly imply they couldn't control 3,000,000 Americans.

CJK (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I Think we all agreed that it was incompetent British leadership and diplomacy that lost the war. It was the only time in modern history that they fought a major war without any allies. London refused to mobilize more than a small fraction of its potential military manpower. ( in other wars, including the seven years war and the Napoleonic wars, it heavily subsidized its continental allies who provided the great bulk of the fighting infantrymen. Their incompetent diplomacy prevented this from happening in the Revolutionary war.) the king, Germain, the Howe Brothers, Cornwallis, Clinton, and Burgoyne all made astonishing mistakes. No one was in charge. (My view is that the British were in a hopeless position as soon as they lost control of 90% of the population. In India, except possibly for some weeks in 1857, that never happened.) Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

But even accounting for all the disadvantages, the British came very close to winning the war. If Howe had made the junction with Burgoyne the Patriots would almost certainly have been doomed to defeat in detail. If Cornwallis had stayed in the Carolinas there would have been no Yorktown and the Patriots and French would have eventually been too exhausted to resist, the war effort was collapsing by 1782.

CJK (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

yes--but Napoleon almost won his wars, And so too Germany in 1914 and 1940. In the 1770s, in my opinion, Britain had a severe structural weakness: very poor leadership, starting with the King himself and his incompetent top official Germain, coupled with the deeply divided government such that North and the Howe brothers, etc, disagreed with his basic policy. Furthermore the royal diplomacy was completely incompetent, as demonstrated by the lack of allies & the unfriendliness of neutrals like Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Add in a structural failure in terms of intelligence, especially regarding the capability and strength of the Patriots, and the weaknesses of the Loyalists. The two major advantages of the British were a powerful navy, and a powerful financial system. The advantage of the Navy was neutralized once France and Spain entered the war, and The financial advantages Were not such that the British could raise enough soldiers to fight this long-distance war. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen you wrote "It was the only time in modern history that they fought a major war without any allies." what about the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), English Civil War, Indian Mutiny, and the Second Boer War? -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Civil War, the Indian mutiny, and the Boer war were not foreign wars--there was no foreign intervention on either side whereas the French were active by 1776 in the American Revolution. I forgot about the Anglo-Spanish war, although it barely qualifies as "modern". Rjensen (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But there is an over-emphasis on structural problems which provide convenient ex post facto explanations for the British defeat that don't really hold up well under scrutiny. If Howe had moved north instead of south we would be talking about how utterly absurd the rebellion was and how the rebel's structural problems made their task impossible. The King, Germain, and North had nothing to do with the strategic incompetence shown by Howe and Cornwallis, they were in fact deceived by them. Howe's incompetence prevented the Patriot armies from being broken up, divided, or chased away so the British could operate in the hinterland while Cornwallis did operate in the hinterland (therefore showing it was possible) but squandered everything by abandoning the Carolinas.

CJK (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Was Howe incompetent? If so how was it that the British government appointed an incompetent top commander and kept them in place for years? The answer is structural. Germain wanted to fire him but he could not do so because the Howell family was politically powerful and on better terms with the king then was Germain. Burgoyne was incompetent too, and Clinton did a very poor job in trying to rescue Burgoyne. And indeed if Howe had rescued Burgoyne, then what? there is no reason to assume the British could hold the entire line of the Hudson River with the limited forces they had. The Americans could have picked off the British encampments one by one and cut off their food supply. Meanwhile Germain refused to believe that tens of thousands of additional troops were needed, as Howe insisted, because he relied on poor intelligence that was supplied by loyalists in London. Germain wanted to use Indians instead of British soldiers -- Apparently he believed that ruthless atrocities against Americans civilians using Indians would dismay the Americans so much they would give up. That was a total misunderstanding of the psychology both of the Americans, and of the Indians who were rarely able to sustain raida of more than a few hours. Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

On a strategic, as opposed to tactical level, Howe was either absurdly incompetent or deliberately treacherous. I've detailed the lengthy evidence previously on the talk page. It is known that Howe was a Whig and he might have wanted to benefit the Whig faction by protracting the war. The Loyalists certainly thought Howe had betrayed them. Burgoyne's incompetence even if true was far less blameworthy than Howe because Burgoyne had less than half of Howe's forces. Clinton also had few forces because Howe had taken most of them to Pennsylvania.

Both sides recognized early on the massive strategic importance of the Hudson valley, also considering that it was dominated by lakes and rivers the British certainly had the capability to control it. Howe demanded tens of thousands of additional troops from Germain so he could have a convenient excuse for not succeeding. In reality he had enough troops to get the job done, as evidenced by the fact that he successfully seized Philadelphia and held it all winter.

CJK (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Marquis de la Fayette

I couldn't help noticing that the Marquis de la Fayette on the American Revolutionary War page is apparently american, although he belongs to the french kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.174.179 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lafayette was commissioned into the Continental Army, an American force (along with a number of other Europeans). Magic♪piano 21:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Vermont as a combatant

It is truly ridiculous to list Vermont as a separate combatant when they always considered themselves as part of the United States. The Congress considered them de jure as a part of New York but de facto as a member of the United States. Either way, there is absolutely no justification for listing Vermont separately.

CJK (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Vermont was pretty independent. Vermont was not recognized as part of the United States by Congress. The Vermont military units did not report to and in no way were controlled by either Congress or general Washington. At one point, Vermont leaders negotiated with British officials to rejoin the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, they considered Vermont as being officially part of New York, a member of the United States. Vermont military units were nothing special, many states raised independent units as well as their militia.

CJK (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the current fashion for talking about a First and Second British Empire which appears elsewhere in wikipedia (i.e. second one starting after US Independence) since after the Thirteen colonies were lost there was still Canada, India, West Indies and numerous islands, the origins of the empire can arguably be traced back to John Cabot when he landed in Newfoundland in 1497, depends on how you define an empire really.--Godwhale (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed Vermont from the infobox. Vermont is not listed anywhere else in the article; the state was part of NY/NH. -- Calidum 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Petition to King George?

...King George. He had control of Parliament until the battle of Yorktown, and he set the policy on the war. Every historian has made that claim. See for example Jeremy Black, George III: America's last king (Yale University Press, 2006) The publisher (Yale) summarizes Black's argument: "Black reveals his strong personal engagement in the struggle for America and argues that George himself, his intentions and policies, were key to the conflict." Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who had the power, the petition was directed to the King, Rwenonah (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Prime Minister and cabinet were still officially regarded as mere servants of the King, which is why it was directed to him. Your statement that "George III was a powerless figurehead who did not make any decisions at all" is simply false, the King still exercised substantial influence at this time despite not being involved in day-to-day governance. His Wikipedia article contains relevant details.

CJK (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CJK about the King. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I hagree with CJK & Rjensen also. Though the British monarch no longer had tax raising powers after William of Orange gave them up as a price for taking the crown in 1688, George III had much more real power than the Queen does now. For instance, his prestige alone kept Pitt the Younger in office as PM in the years immediately after the war, when he had no real power base in the Commons. It was also to the King that the rebels addressed their final appeal and not to the North administration, which he rejected out of hand believing they had already gone too far in taking up arms against the Redcoats. Having done so, they couldn't expect to be treated much differently to the Irish rebels during the French Revolutionary War.--Godwhale (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you read a single word anybody wrote? It was addressed to the King because the cabinet were officially the King's servants and repeatedly addressed as such during this time period.

CJK (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The King controlled the cabinet and the parliament through heavy use of patronage. Prime Minister Lord North disagreed with the King's policy on America, but the king would not allow him to resign and browbeat him repeatedly. As a result Lord North had to carry out the Kings hard-line policies on America. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hibbert wrote a popular biography but he did not say that the King was a cipher. Let us have a quotation please. You need to read the modern scholarship, such as Dickinson who examines how George appointed and dismissed ministers; shaped the composition of both houses of parliament By interfering in elections and using patronage and making peers; & shaped government policy especially regarding the American revolution. Dickinson, H.T. "George III and Parliament" Parliamentary History (2011), Vol. 30 Issue 3, p395-413. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many, many things I disagree with on this article, like the failure to cite as reasons for independence the desire to continue smuggling and perpetuate slavery, the greed for Indian lands, not to say the failure to discuss that many of the Sons of Liberty were thugs who did terrible things to Loyalists during and after the war, but this particular element is not one of them. You're just trying to wind people up, and it seems like you might well be a sockpuppet, stop wasting people's time--Godwhale (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trimming the lead

I trimmed the lead to 560 words (not counting invisible links and footnotes) in three paragraphs, by focusing on the military action and dropping a lot of unnecessary detail that is covered in the text. I also dropped a lot of unnecessary footnotes that were just repeats of notes that already appear in the main text Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Was Ireland a combatant?

Should the Kingdom of Ireland be listed as a combatant?

CJK (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Juan Riley (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Ireland and Irish troops played an important part during the war. Hanover should also be included for similar reasons. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ireland? it was part of Britain and never had separate units. Hanover did not participate directly in the war zones. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanover had troops (under overall British command) at Gibraltar, Minorca, and in India. Its participation ought to be marked here the same way other German principalities (who sent troops to North America) are. Presumably Irish troops were actually placed in regiments of the British Army, not of a separate Irish Army. Magic♪piano 17:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The RS do not include Hanover as a participant. The German states like Hesse had formal agreements to rent out combat troops but Hanover did not. George III was king but it had a totally separate government which did not join the war. The government of Ireland likewise did not join the war. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Umm, what's this, chopped liver? Magic♪piano 18:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that that is indeed chopped liver--Or anyway an unreliable source on Hanover, because the next sentence states that Hanover "formed part of the United Kingdom," which is totally false. Rjensen (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that was the first of many sources located on the subject in two minutes of Google Book searching, your contention that Hanoverian participation is not reliably sourced is specious. Do try harder before making sweeping assertions (or do I really need to include more links, to both English and German sources?) Magic♪piano 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't all this effort be better spent editing the article..not to insert details that are quite arguable..but to reduce the politics in the article and make it better--about the war? And one more mention of Ireland as a co-belligerent will have me note that there were at least some Germans and Scots and I presume Irish in the patriot militia's and hence should they not be listed as co belligerents on the US side? Absurd I know. Get the point? Juan Riley (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is that Hanover did not declare war or make an official agreement to join the war, so it should not be included. Rjensen (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be clearer in your statements then, since that isn't what I understood you to say above. Magic♪piano 19:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

a) Hanover. As Magicpiano says, there are many google book references to Hanoverian participation in the war. It seems a bit pointless to list them all, but I can if need be. Hanover signed a neutrality agreement with France regarding the territory of the Electorate itself, but this did not cover the rest of the world (hence the Hanoverian presence at Gibraltar and in India). The Hanoverian agreement was mutually self-serving (the Hanoverians didn't want their country to be attacked, the French regarded the Invasion of 1757 as a colossal mistake that sucked in valuable resources) but the very fact it was signed indicates that the French and Hanoverians considered themselves, as they had in past wars, to be in de facto conflict once war with Britain was declared.

b) Ireland wasn't part of Britain. The idea that it was in the 18th century stems from a misconception, partly due to the subsequent Act of Union. Ireland was not a part of Britain until 1801 when they became a "United Kingdom". During this war Ireland was a sovereign state with a King, separate Parliament, Army (etc.). The Act of Union was extremely controversial in Ireland and various figures Grattan, O'Connell and the Home Rulers spent the next century trying to reverse it. The movement in Ireland during the 1760-90s was actually for more independence, not less. In the 17th-18th century the Irish regarded themselves as allies and equals of the British, which is why they resented Poyning's Law which they wanted to have overturned. Ireland was absolutely vital to the British war effort in terms of finance, troops and supplies. See the Irish Volunteers for just one example of the vast Irish military presence during the conflict, and a particularly independent one.

Even in spite of all that infoboxes include major participants, which Ireland and Hanover both qualify as, not merely sovereign states. Britain was unlikely to sustain its resistance against the French-led coalition without them. Excluding them from the infobox is misleading in terms of the overall picture. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• The issue of Hanover has been thrashed out at great length (see archives) and it's clear that it was in no way a combatant, nor was it thought of as one at the time. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But past debates on an issue can't be used as a means of preventing fresh discussion unless they took place recently. I can't see anything in the archives that suggests this has been discussed in any serious way for some years. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The original question had nothing to do with Hanover: should the Kingdom of Ireland be listed as a combatant? . . . no, because the kingdom simply did not exist at that time. Uhlan ^talk 01:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

See Kingdom of Ireland, or try looking at one of the standard studies of Ireland during the eighteenth century. There are literally hundreds of books on the subject. With all due respect, if you are familiar with the subject of pre-1798 Ireland you'd know it was a separate kingdom at the time. It had been since Henry VIII abolished the Lordship of Ireland. And Hanover - well we're not confined to discussing the original question, but feel free to start a new thread at the bottom if you wish. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change - but the sources presented in those discussions are unlikely to. We shouldn't dismiss old discussions just for being old, and as the sources were pretty unanimous at the time, it seems a good opportunity to nip the Hanover discussion in the bud before we end up rehashing the same points. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your basic point. I think we've probably all been involved on articles where people bring up exactly the same issue once a month or so. On the other hand this potentially opens up a dead hand of one or two editors agreeing a consensus based on one or two sources a decade or more ago. In the time since past consensus was agreed new sources may have been written, editors may have left or joined with fresh perspectives, or the WP policies themselves may have changed. It may even have been that the original discussion misinterpreted the sources or only examined a selection (which I'm not implying happened in this case).

I've skimmed the archives but I've missed the exact discussion you were alluding to. Can you point me to it directly. Obviously if there is a clear demonstration of overwhelming RS demonstrating what you say, I'll naturally withdraw the suggestion. But on a point of principle I don't think we should assume that a previous discussion inevitably settles an issue for ever.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(picking up an old discussion I missed last week). The discussions are mainly in Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 9#Belligerents and Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 9#Combatants. With the first of these, I have a surprisingly clear memory of spending an evening shift in the library going through every possible cross-reference in The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War just to be sure it didn't mention Hanover as a belligerent state. Ireland hadn't been brought up that time around, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't called out separately either Andrew Gray (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The "separate" kingdom of Ireland had as its king George III; he and his British government in London set policy for Ireland. The Viceroy (such as George Townshend in 1767-72) was an Englishman rooted in English politics & appointed by the King, and as Foster notes, he "was subject to be overridden by a British prime minister or Home Secretary" [Foster, Modern Ireland 1600-1972 p 227]. In a word, Ireland was controlled from London. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Rjensen for stating so clearly the point.Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarity, have you withdrawn the original assertion about Ireland being part of Britain? (with my Irish hat on, that's a slightly inflammatory statement even post-1801, although I accept Britain can be a rather ambiguous concept). The best I can draw from RS is that Ireland and England (later Britain) were separate Kingdoms until Pitt's Act of Union made them a United Kingdom, although Ireland was part of the "British composite monarchy" and the First British Empire before then. The English may at times have taken a chauvinistic attitude to Ireland, but that isn't the point.

There's a lot of works covering Ireland's constitutional status in the 18th century, and even more about the 17th century particularly during the War of the Three Kingdoms. Michael Ó Siochrú 's Confederate Ireland, 1642-1649 is a good study of the tradition of Irish sovereignty at a period when it was under it's greatest strain. Until 1801 Ireland was a separate Kingdom with a Parliament, Privy Council and King (as I'm sure you're aware in the Commonwealth tradition the fact it is the same person wearing the separate crown is irrelevant). Ireland's constitutional independence was long standing. This was only altered once, following the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland when London incorporated Ireland into a republic encompassing the entire British Isles. Even then a clear majority of the Irish population continued to pledge their allegiance to Charles II and the Three Kingdom model which was subsequently restored. The 1688 and 1714 changes of monarchy didn't significantly alter the relationship, with the odd exception such as the Dependency Act which switched the Court of Appeal from the Irish House of Lords to the British House of Lords. During the same period Scotland, by contrast, ceased to exist as a separate monarchy.

The Dublin executive generally operated with a degree of independence, as it had in the past. For example in the American War the London government proposed that wholly-Catholic regiments should be raised in Ireland (as opposed to the widespread situation of Catholics serving in notionally all-Protestant regiments), but the Irish executive blocked this.[Mackesy. War for America p.368] and they also rejected the substitution of German auxiliaries for the regular Irish Army.[Mackesy p. 61-62]. Political action by the non-government Irish elite was also generally independent. [Ó Siochrú p.58-59] describes the traditional Irish tactic of employing Poyning's Law to their advantage by using influence at the British court to get the King (as Irish Monarch) to overturn the policy of the Irish Government. This naturally worked less well at times, but Lord North (whose gov't pursued more pro-Catholic measures) and the Irish-born Lord Shelburne were more receptive to the Irish case. In fact both showed much more sensitivity to the Irish case than they did to the similar American one, as was noted at the time.

BTW: being British-born didn't connote any constitutional significance, then or later. As late as the 1940s John Buchan and Athlone both served as wartime Governor Generals of Canada, but both were British-born and neither was involved in the politics of Canada. In turn the British Prime Minister (Shelburne) and commander in America (Carleton) during 1782 were both Irish. Again confusion about this seems to stem from lack of familiarity with the traditional Irish (and Commonwealth) system of gov't.

I would also add that this all describes only the situation pre-1782, but things changed greatly from April of that year (which I can source at length). I'd also repeat that the infobox on this article and other major wars include many participants which were not sovereign states which Ireland (and Hanover) most definitely were at the time. If need be we can always put them under a double indent under Great Britain to make clear that they were under overall British command which might take into account the points you make.

Apologies for the length of the post, but I wanted to address the various points you raise. I've cut some of the sources I've consulted to shorten the length, but I can supply them if necessary. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Irish hat me arse! Juan Riley (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well i side with JuanRiley here. All the stuff about other centuries is irrelevant: we are only concerned here with the 1775-83 era, at which time the Viceroy in charge of Dublin Castle was in fact one of several prominent Englishmen chosen by the British PM and appointed by the King (likewise the Viceroy's top aide the chief secretary). I think no one born in Ireland had a major voice in the decisions on the war. Ireland was part of the domain ruled by King George and his London cabinet and prime minister North. They made all the decisions, which were carried out by the king's viceroy in Dublin after 1772. (before 1772 the undertakers --who were indeed Irish--played a major role.) Ireland was an integral part of the British domain/Empire and the men who had the most power were loyal to Britain. (Indeed many of the main landowners lived in England). After the war the Irish Parliament DID get much more power (eg Grattan) but AFTER the time frame of this article. (Compare Hanover --it also had King George III but it had a totally separate government of its own inside Hanover – the King never visited Hanover and generally just signed off on the paperwork from London. very unlike Ireland.) So let's compromise and "put it under double indent under Great Britain to make clear that they were under overall British command" Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I added the 17th century references because much of Ireland's 75-82 status was rooted in that century (in much the same way as debates about American rights were rooted in the charters or from the even earlier Rights of Englishmen). Ireland was partly such a sensitive issue to British Whigs of the 18th century because in the 17th century there had been a threat of the King (as monarch of Ireland) raising separate Irish (generally Catholic) armies to overawe the London Parliament. Even in the 1770s there were still many Irish Catholics who retained Jacobite views (although constitutionally a restoration may have changed little in Ireland, other than substituting Catholic office-holders for Protestant ones) that drew on this tradition. The North Government's moves towards Catholic emancipation in Quebec & Ireland fuelled allegations in Britain and New England that they were trying to restore Stuart-style tyranny. So the previous century was a very live issue in Anglo-Irish politics during the war.

• The Viceroy was largely a figurehead role, he was there to represent George as King of Ireland. They were roughly equivalent to modern Governor Generals. The political running of Ireland mostly lay in the hands of the Chief Secretary, the Dublin Castle administration and those employed to manage the Irish parliament. Much more than the Viceroy the CS was closely involved in Irish politics. A number of them during the era were Irish such as Jones, Macartney or FitzPatrick who held the post during the war. The best known is probably Castlereagh although he was post-1783. As stated above country of birth is constitutionally irrelevant in the Commonwealth model or indeed, I think, in the American one except for the President + VP.

• I think major voice a bit hard to define. Shelburne's as Prime Minister is the most obvious one. He oversaw strategy during the final year of the war and agreed peace terms with America, France (etc.). A lot of others had close links with Ireland, but were British-born (Hillsborough is an example, with Irish estates and peerage). Germain had lived in Ireland for a number of years and attended Trinity College. Welbore Ellis was Irish-born, I think. Isaac Barré and Edmund Burke were both leading members of the opposition for much of the war, and served in gov't before the end. There were a fair few on the military or colonial side in the Americas (Carleton, Rawdon, Despard) or in India (Coote, MacCartney). They’re just off-the-top-of-my-head, so I've probably missed out quite a few. As above though, place of birth is largely irrelevant. Both Kings between 1714-1760 were born in neither Britain nor Ireland. Or see Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, Richard Montgomery, Button Gwinnett, Albert Gallatin (etc.)

• I agree about Ireland being an integral part of British imperial power, most sources are pretty clear on that. It's inconceivable that the British could have continued this global war without Irish troops and the financial support of the Irish Parliament. [The Irish chapter of The Oxford History of the British Empire: Eighteenth Century outlines why the British placed much greater value on Ireland than America].

• 1782 is actually during the war. Globally it was perhaps the peak year, because the fighting had spread so far and wide despite the ceasefire in America. The Shelburne/Grattan reforms were therefore not post-war. I'll post a single source but this quite uncontroversial amongst historians of Ireland and I've several more if required. "Ireland was now in effect independent under the crown, a position the American colonies had been denied" [Black. George III p.249]

• Agreed, the Irish gov't was very different from Hanover. George was effectively an absolute monarch in the Electorate, where he raised troops for service in this war by the stroke of a pen. In Ireland they needed votes in parliament to raise money to maintain the Irish Army or increase its size. All three were distinct states, but shared a common person as monarch much like Canada and the UK a century later.

• The compromise sounds a good way of dealing with Ireland (and I'd say Hanover as well, as their troops were similarly under overall British command). That seems consistent with the way a similar command structure is treated in the Boer War article for instance. Sorry I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll try and respond to your India post tomorrow. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ireland did not have it's own army, it was not a separate combatant. Ireland did have it's own "establishment" which usually could be set by the Irish parliament in peacetime. Scotland and England had their own establishments as well. However all three formed the British army as a whole.Thecitizen1 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

we have TWO Articles on the subject

The one on the American Revolution explores a great length the politics and the causes; this one is limited to the warfare aspects. The current section on the causes is very poorly done, relies on scholarship that was outdated over 130 years ago when scholars started studying the causes of the American Revolution in depth. Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, I think you are right that the ‘other’ article has gone a bit stale and is not edited so much as it could be, but I think there are good reasons for this. I feel I know as much about this subject as anyone else but I personally feel completely unable to edit either article. I would like very much to debate this with in the sincere hope that you can understand why I and some other people find this whole thing so frustrating. Are you happy to do that?--Godwhale (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Patriot is a biased term

See also some previous discussions

• Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 1#NPOV terms: rebels, patriots, etc.
• Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 4#Americans? No such thing at the time
• Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 5#Loyalists
• Talk:American_Revolutionary War/Archive 6#"Worldwide View Box"
• Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_8#'Americans'

The use of patriot in this article is not neutral and presents this article from a specific point of view, even more so when it describes groups prior to the unilateral deceleration of independence. One of the arguments presented in previous discussions to justify its usage is that it is a term of art by historians. While that may or may not be true, this is not an academic journal and using such terms means that they are read by the general public with their usual dictionary definitions, and using "patriot" with or without a capital letter gives any sentence with it an American pov. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not a biased term. PBS wants us to depend on the dictionary. Okay here is the Oxford English Dictionary--it is the leading British dictionary: Patriot: "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence." Or let us look at the Merriam Webster Unabridged Dictionary third edition (an American dictionary): "one who advocates or promotes the independence of his native soil or people from the country or union of countries of which it is a part (as a colony). " This is exactly how Wikipedia uses the word in this article. The OED notes that at the time, it was a term of disparagement. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

During the most recent troubles in Northern Ireland was it members of the UDA or the IRA who who were the patriots? Doesn't the answer to that question depend on ones politics and not a simple dictionary definition? Using the OED definition: "forces occupying his or her country" and what was that country of the patriots during the American War of Independence? -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The OED clearly states: "Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence." As for Ireland, I am not sure how much the term was actually used. Rjensen (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you not heard of the term patriotic duty? Anyone who does their patriotic duty is a patriot (eg The Patriot Game, (song)). In the case of the American War of Independence it means that British offices, American loyalists and American rebels were patriots and of course patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. To reserve the word as a description for one side in the American War of Independence presents an American POV, because it implies that loyalists were not also patriots. Or put another way, that the 13 colonies were already a sovereign state and that the British were invaders and it was the loyalists who were the insurgents. It is like saying that it was the "Civil War" rather than the "War between the States", it makes a specific claim and presents a biased point of view. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was not made until 1776 and the Articles of Confederation were not agreed until 1777 or not ratified until 1781. The cleanest date to argue that the United States came into existence is in 1778 with the recognition by France, but of course Britain did not formally recognise the existence of such a state until the Treaty of Paris (1783). The argument for describing American rebels as American patriots gets stronger as time passes, but it is hard to see how they can be descried as patriots before the UDI. Yet this article uses the term "Patriot mobs" as early as 1773 a year before the Boston Tea Party, what exactly were they being "patriotic" about in 1773? -- PBS (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but if we don't call them Patriots, what are we supposed to call them? Simply saying "Americans" is also biased, because there were many Americans who were loyalists or neutral.

CJK (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not call them rebels? A more precise word is insurgents, but that seems relatively rare in reliable sources although it is sometimes used eg (Charles Botta (1834) 370 ) -- a more typical example is by Jeff Wallenfeldt (2009) who uses "insurgents" once, on page 42, and "patriots" in the rest of the book. -- PBS (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The loyalist did not call themselves "patriots" because that was a term of abuse and ridicule at the time in British politics. OED says: " It fell into particular discredit in the earlier half of the 18th cent., being used, according to Dr Johnson, ‘ironically for a factious disturber of the government’" The Americans deliberately chose it for that reason. Macaulay wrote that around 1744 "The name of patriot had become a byword of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said, that..the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was, that he had never been and never would be a patriot." PBS asks about the usage as early as 1773 Yes the terms was in use by 1773 – Benjamin Franklin, for example, said noted "so many Thousand true Patriots as New England contains" (July 1773, from OED). Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen Do you have access to the OED? If you do you will know that it give three different usages for its first definition. The first two existed side by side from the start of the Civil War (patriot becoming another word for Roundhead/Republican among some). The third an American definition starting with the quote from Franklin (1773) you have given:

• a "A person who loves his or her country, esp. one who is ready to support its freedoms and rights and to defend it against enemies or detractors."
• b "derogatory or ironic. A person who claims to be disinterestedly or self-sacrificingly devoted to his or her country, but whose actions or intentions are considered to be detrimental or hypocritical; a false or feigned patriot."
• c "spec. (orig. U.S.). A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter."

What a word at the time meant is not really relevant what matters is what it means today (and that is predominately the first meaning), but lets follow the contemporary usage for a moment: what did Franklin mean by "Patriot" in 1773? -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The word from 1773 onward, in the context of the American Revolution, is always used meaning that group of Americans that actively opposed British. That is Clearly stated in the dictionaries and that is how it is used by scholars. This is the article about the American Revolution, and readers deserve to have the most accurate language that is used by scholars. Rjensen (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS, the passage to which you link in Charles Botta, History Of The War Of The Independence Of The United States Of America (New Haven, 1834), ii: 370 is actually referring to mutineers within the (anti-British) American forces as 'insurgents', not to the patriot movement as a whole. 305, which does refer to the latter as 'insurgents' is expressly cast as representing the opinion of Benedict Arnold (whom Botta, or his translator, casts as a real scoundrel--this is not his own thinking); so also 102 (here direct speech from a character in the narrative) and probably also 81 (representing the thinking of the French government ministers early in the war). Only 460 appears to refer to 'insurgents' in Botta's own voice, in the way that your argument demands. But never mind that--why should we take a book translated from another language and published in 1834 as representative of modern scholarly English usage? As you yourself have said, Franklin isn't a source for contemporary usage; neither, I should guess, is Wallenfeldt--correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a textbook, not a scholarly monograph; it is devoid of footnotes, and thus useless for establishing academic convention. 'Patriot' is perhaps problematic, but we need much more convincing evidence than this, especially granted that both of your proposed alternatives are heavily laden with negative connotations. Spurius Furius (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen you have not answered my question "what did Franklin mean by "Patriot" in 1773?" Ie was he making up a new definition or referring to the Good Old Cause? In you reply you write "This is the article about the American Revolution," this is not the article about the "American Revolution" this is an article about the American War of Independence the two things are not one and the same thing (see Archive 1). While patriot may be a term of art among scholars it is a biased (and before the UDI an inaccurate word). So why not replace it with a more accurate and neutral word? Spurius Furius I think you miss the point of what I wrote. I specifically wrote that "A more precise word is insurgents, but that seems relatively rare in reliable sources". My point is that while insurgent would be a suitable replacement for patriot as it is not used very frequently in reliable sources so it is probably unsuitable. Why do you think that rebel (and insurgent) "are heavily laden with negative connotations"? To show that patriot is a biased word if one does a Google book search on ["American War of Independence"] it returns "About 114,000", add the word patriot ["American War of Independence" patriot] comes down to 4,000. The same search using ["American Revolutionary War"] returns "About 66,600 results" adding ["American Revolutionary War" patriot] returns "About 66,200 results". If the word patriot was not presenting an American POV one would expect the ratios of the two pairs of searches to be similar. -- PBS (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You can complain all you want about bias and other BS, but you've yet to actually introduce another term we could use. And we don't need to distinguish between American and British sources to make our determination. Overall, scholars prefer the term Patriots. Britain lost the war; get over it. -- Calidum 17:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also please note that changing terms will have consequent changes to probably thousands of articles besides this one. Who is prepared to do this work? (Not me, based on the arguments presented thus far for alternatives.) This is not an argument against change per se, just that it will probably need to have a very strong foundation to be seen through. Magic♪piano 18:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the misunderstanding is that PBS assumes that the word patriot has only positive connotations. That is false according to OED = b "derogatory or ironic = the term had these heavily negative connotations (that is why the loyalists never used it.) The Americans opposing the British picked up the insulting term and use it to describe themselves. That is how the RS & the dictionaries use the term. PBS has yet to find a single reliable source that says the terminology is somehow biased. He did a Google search and found many tens of thousands of examples that use it. Rjensen (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea that the term "Patriot" had negative connotation in Britain is a myth, perpetuated because of a criticism by Samuel Johnson written in the mid-1770s, regarding of his own personal cynicism towards politicians who used the term for their own ends. The term and its meaning found its origins in early-mid 18th century English politics during the diplomatic confrontations with Spain in which aggressive "patriotic Whigs" pursued a policy of war against Spain to defend Britain's honor. King George III was known as the first "patriot king" of the Georgian family by many because of his professed patriotism in Britain apposed to Germany like his father and grandfather. It had mainly connotations with the Whig party, however Tory politicians tried to portray themselves as Patriots, like the Earl of Bute, who was called by his supporters the "patriot minister" for pursuing a foreign policy which favored the interests of Britain, opposed to those of Hanover, withdrawing the British army from Germany. Thecitizen1 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a myth. The OED states: "b. derogatory or ironic. A person who claims to be disinterestedly or self-sacrificingly devoted to his or her country, but whose actions or intentions are considered to be detrimental or hypocritical; a false or feigned patriot. The term patriot has been at various times assumed by those whose claim to it has been disputed by others. It fell into particular discredit in the earlier half of the 18th cent., being used, according to Dr Johnson, ‘ironically for a factious disturber of the government’." Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Again you are perpetuating the same myth based on a misinterpretation of Samuel Johnson's cynicism towards the supporters of Earl of Bute because they described him as a patriot. The OED was written 100 years later based on the writings of Samuel Johnson. There are countless recorded examples of the term patriot in 18th century British lexicon in positive connotation.Thecitizen1 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

myth?? you have not mentioned any source, Macaulay did not think so, writing re 1740s "The name of patriot had become a byword of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said, that..the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was, that he had never been and never would be a patriot." see full quote at Macaulay (1833). Critical and Historical Essays ... p. 227. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes a myth. As its a source quoting Walpole, the figure who the Whigs strongly opposed and gave origin to being a patriot in Whig politics. Thecitizen1 (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI but Charles Stedman, who served in the British army during the war, refers to them as "patriots" in his History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War (1794).

CJK (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS, I take your point that you conceded that 'insurgent' is not commonly used (though you did not, so far as I can see, state that you did not want to use it for that reason), but that seems rather to undermine your case: if this is not standard scholarly practice, Wikipedia cannot use it. The same is true, of course, for 'patriot', but, in the absence of real arguments and evidence, we cannot justify changing the established usage of the article. Both 'rebel' and 'insurgent' are indeed negative; I am not sure what evidence I can provide to establish this, if you do not see it: the former,by implicitly asserting that the colonials were acting against a legitimate and sovereign government, short-circuits any serious consideration of the legal complexities involved in a colony's declaring its independence, while the latter, in our own if not the 18th-century context, implicitly assimilates them to contemporary Middle-Eastern and Central Asian paramilitary groups often stigmatized as terrorists. Besides, 'insurgents' implies the use of guerilla warfare, which was not a consistent feature of American colonial tactics. Calidum is a bit sharper than I would prefer to be, but he's right: you have offered objections, some valid, others specious, to the term 'patriot' but have not produced either a convincing alternative or, more importantly, persuasive evidence that 'patriot' is not a common scholarly term. Google Books is not a scholarly database, and your search methodology is suspect: origin of a book in the United States is neither proven by the choice of term nor does origin in the United States prove that something represents a culpably biased 'American POV'.

As for your arguments, JimMacAllistair, I don't see how they can be taken seriously. The British colonists had made North America their country; many, indeed, were born there, sometimes to people who had lived there for generations. That others may have had a better claim to North America as their 'patria' is not relevant, except perhaps as an irony in the mind of the reader; contemporary scholarly usage (which we have not, for the record, established) is. This is trolling, not real argument. Spurius Furius (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen you have not answered my question "what did Franklin mean by "Patriot" in 1773?" did he mean a supporter of the Good Old Cause, or did he mean something else? Instead you write "I think the misunderstanding is that PBS assumes that the word patriot has only positive connotations." Whether at the time people use the term patriot to mean a supported of the Good Old Cause or something else, its usage today implies someone who supports their nation, and if it is to be used before the UDI, then what does it mean as (the nation did not exist)?

@Spurius Furius your argument "The British colonists had made North America their country" is I think flawed unless you think that Virginians somehow changed from being patriots to rebels between the 1770s and the 1860s. Surly in both cases they were either rebels or patriots, unless one is using the terms inconsistently. If they were rebels in the 1860 then why not use the term for the 1770s as well? Luckily one can usually substitute the word "Confederate" for "rebel" so this is not usually a POV issue for civil war articles (but using the word patriot in an article has POV connotations). For example in the main body of the text the first use of the term Patriot is in the sentence "The landing of this tea was resisted in all the colonies and, when the royal governor of Massachusetts refused to send back the tea ships in Boston, Patriot mobs destroyed the tea chests". In what way were the mobs patriotic? Even the phrase "rebellious mobs" would not be accurate. "anti-tax mobs" would be more accurate, but it is probably better just to drop the adjective completely from in front of mobs. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Franklin in 1773 meant people like himself opposing British policies. It is favorable. It is the first known usage says OED. Benjamin Franklin: "so many Thousand true Patriots as New England contains" (July 1773, from OED). Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS, I think that that actually confirms my point: if we assume that the Virgininians in 1861 were simply 'rebels', we are adopting an implicitly Unionist stance. That may not be wrong, but it needs to be justified through careful consideration of all of the relevant legal, as well as merely lexical, evidence; of course, the legal and cultural situation can have changed, so the rebels (or patriots) of 1775 by no means stand and fall with the patriots (or rebels) of 1861. Why couldn't the Virginians, in either case, be both patriots--that is, loyal inhabitants of their homeland--and rebels--that is, an armed opposition to a government that claims sovereignty over the territory they inhabit? Bias (or 'POV', to use Wikipedia parlance) is not a matter of simple terminological choice, but of the underlying assumptions that that choice reflects and (however indirectly) justifies. I do agree on the specific issue of 'mobs', provided, of course, that the context does not really require an adjective.Spurius Furius (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the arguments made against the use of the terms 'rebel' or 'insurgent' are persuasive. I've no objection to the use of the term 'Patriot' (provided it's capitalised) but I strongly oppose the blanket opposition to occasional use of alternate terms, just because some users' POV leads them to believe they are inherently negative. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I object to limited use of potentially negative terms, provided that we do so on the basis of established academic usage. The problem is that some users are insisting that the term 'patriot' (capitalized or not) is inherently biased, regardless of its acceptance among the learned, and therefore to be rejected entirely. What we need, as I have said already, is serious consideration of contemporary academic usage (especially of any reasoned arguments in the scholarly literature for or against any particular terminology), which I am not competent, and no one else seems to be prepared, to provide. That, and not the possibility that 'rebel' or 'insurgent' might offend pro-Patriot sensibilities, is the problem. Spurius Furius (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The dictionaries and the RS use "patriot". The complainers have only their own very narrow memory of how they & their friends use the word. One role of Wikipedia is to broaden people's narrow views and introduce them to what reliable sources actually say. Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncapitalised? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, capitalization had not been standardized in 1770s. Today both P and p versions appear in RS. Mary Beth Norton: "While most female patriots did not fight in battle...."; 2) Bennett 2014: " historians have a tendency to systematize the Patriot cause"; 3) Furer (2013) Paine "inspired the Patriots in 1776 to declare independence" Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1770s usage is irrelevant for our articles, outside of quotes. If we don't insist on capitalisation we're just being confusing. It would be like referring to Obama as a democrat rather than a Democrat. He may well be the first, but it's not our place to assert that point of view. He's definitely the second. Gob Lofa (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

1775-1783 Stupad merikans (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What, exactly, needs changed? —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Slavery deemed illegal in Britain in 1772

There should be a section about the causes of the war, the biggest one being the court case in England in 1772 which resulted in 10-14,000 slaves in England being freed by 1773/4 ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart Also, the views of Gerald Horne, professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston, in his book, with in-depth citations, called "The Counter-Revolution of 1776", which shows that the war was basically a war against the emancipation of the slaves that had already happened in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

For all I know, this may have been a contributing factor, but modern american propaganda/censorship will never allow this to be mentioned as such in any encyclopedia. GMRE (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is protected, so can someone add this link

This section contains the word "egalitarianism", which (as a very rare word) should be turned into a link: Egalitarianism. GMRE (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing date in painting caption

Painting of Washington crossing the Delaware said "Emanuel Leutze's stylized depiction of Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851)". The "1851" could be confusing to many readers, especially younger readers. They may think that that is the year of the crossing. Other captions in this article contain the year of the event, not the year the painting was painted. So I removed "1851" from the caption. If someone really wants 1851 in the caption, it should probably be qualified as "painted in 1851". --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Too many leaders in info box?

Especially because of the "full list" links, I am of the opinion that there are too many leaders listed in the infobox (on both sides). Thoughts? Juan Riley (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC) As grist for the mill, I might suggest: Howe, Clinton, Gage, Cornwallis vs Washington, de Rochambeau, de Grasse, Greene, Gates. I do not mean to diminish the contributions of those not on this short list. Moreover, I have not fully thought this thru. Juan Riley (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Failing comments on this suggestions, I will (e.g. tomorrow) attempt such a revision to provoke reaction if nothing else. Juan Riley (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend thinking it through fully first. Rwenonah (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The argument I would make is that (a) there is a linked article with a more complete list and (b) those not mentioned in the infobox are (if mentioned in the article) linked. Juan Riley (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox strength numbers and citations

I made a few relatively minor adjustments here before I realized that there are some significant discrepancies between the infobox and the text. E.g., in the infobox we have "78 Royal Navy ships in 1775" with one reference given and in the text we have "When the war began...Royal Navy had over 100 ships of the line..." with no reference given. There is a table (with reference) in Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War which of course disagrees somewhat with both of the previous numbers though it is clear from this table (I think) that we are talking about ships of the line. Note also that in the Allies strength column the " 146 ships of the line in 1782" given seems to come from this same table in Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War. Not having any of these sources...what's a fella to do? To be perhaps too bold I am about to change British naval strength to the number in the same table for the same year as the allied number comes from, note that it is ships of the line, and add the references from this other article.Juan Riley (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Next issue: is it appropriate on this page and in this infobox that Mysore and Dutch strength in India be included? Juan Riley (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Supplies

The introduction should mention that France, Spain and the Dutch Republic supplied the colonists with money and weapons from the spring of 1776, mainly through the Dutch West Indies, as this shows how the rebels were able to keep fighting until France and Spain formally declared war. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC))

How about sources? BusterD (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all sourced in the article. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC))

a) it has to be in the main text before mention in the lede; b) RS [reliable secondary sources] on Dutch W Indies are not given anywhere. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The main text and other wiki articles say all three countries were sending supplies in spring 1776, before the Declaration of Independence. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC))

the text does not mention the Dutch West Indies. that is OR. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How else were the French, Spanish and Dutch to get most of the supplies to the colonists? (CharltonChiltern (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC))

As per other editors am reverting CharltonChiltern again: RS's not just beliefs are required as well as significance to be included in lede. Juan Riley (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's already cited in the article but needs to be in the introduction as it explains how the colonists were able to keep fighting before France and Spain formally entered the war. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC))

One more time: to CharltonChiltern: what exactly is the RS that proves your statement? please give a full citation to a book that we all can evaluate. Rjensen (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

See the article on Roderigue Hortalez and Company. France and Spain were sending plenty of supplies and money by the early summer of 1776. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC))

you are referencing dead links that you did not actually read. Rjensen (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, are you really trying to pretend that enormous quantites of French, Spanish & Dutch goods did not make it across the Atlantic to keep the rebel armies in the field? This is something that is so widely known and cited in so many works that it barely needs a source at all. Are you seriously trying to make out that this is OR? The reason this is not in the lede is that as with the Dunmore Proclamation and any mention of fighting to keep slavery, it does not fit the conservative narrative this article espouses, so if anyone mentions it, it is swiftly removed. The patriots had no domestic supply of saltpetre, necessary to make gunpowder and only one lead mine. From the beginning, Dutch firms, of which Daniël Crommelin & Sons of Amsterdam was the most significant shipped arms and ammo to St Eustacia in the Dutch WI . There US shippers used their considerable prewar smuggling experience to exchange armaments for cotton, tobacco, indigo and cattle, and because the British tried to beat the patriots without spending the necessary sums on fully mobilising the fleet and building new ships, they quite easily got past the paper thin blockade; On 15th October 1774, a letter arrived from the British envoy to the Netherlands Sir Joseph Yorke telling HM government what the Dutch were doing. In addition to the idealistic P. Beumarchias who bankrupted himself sending supplies out of his own pocket in the mistaken belief they would be paid for, and who died in poverty as a result, the French government sent 1.3 billion livres in cash and arms, blankets, uniforms and boots to the Continental Army, whose men often were practically naked, according to Washington. As for sources you can evaluate, there is A Naval History of the American Revolution by Gardner Allen (1913) or Beaumarchais & the American War of Independence by Elizabeth Kite (1918) both available online. For more modern sources, there is Spain & the Independence of the United States; An Intinsic Gift by Thmoas E. Chavez or The Royal Navy in European Waters by David Syrett. Both these modern books use primary British and Spanish government sources--Godwhale (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

there were lots of european supplies. You need to cite a proper reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As always, this is an utterly pointless excercise.--Godwhale (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

'First British Empire'?

Sorry, but what exactly is this 'first British Empire?' We still kept it, but accepted the independence of the us. We're not the French you know, we didn't have several empires, we had one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.35.173 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

it's the term used by historians of the British Empire: 1) Tucker, Robert W., and David Hendrickson. The Fall of the First British Empire: Origins of the Wars of American Independence (Johns Hopkins U Press, 2002); 2) Simms, Brendan. Three victories and a defeat: the rise and fall of the first British Empire (Basic Books, 2008); and it's not a new term: 3) Keith, Arthur. Constitutional history of the first British Empire (Clarendon press, 1930). Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And follow the link (First British Empire)to learn the context. Juan Riley (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The terms First & Second Empire are never used in Britain. Its a bit like me saying that the Patriots in the AM REV were not called Patriots but something else. Plenty of British writers have pointed out the absurdity of this notion but unfortunately there are many more US editors than UK editors, so inevitably conservatives who like to see 1783 as an earth shattering event from which all other world events emanated insist on it being used. The French lost all their empire in 1815 and had to go and get another one, but that didn't happen to Britain. The fact that Britain had colonies in Canada, Africa, India and already a presence in Oceania at the so-called 'end' of the first empire is of course ignored. This really demonstrates the limitations of Wikipedia in allowing amateur historians to add their own pet historical narratives, because you cam always find a writer from 1930 or some other era to 'support' your position, and then argue it relentlessly until other editors give up.--Godwhale (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's used all the time by British prize winners: look at 1) 4) Vincent T. Harlow was the Beit Professorship of Commonwealth History at the University of Oxford...best known The Founding of the Second British Empire, 1763-1793 (1952); 2) Brendan Simms is Reader in International Relations at the University of Cambridge. he wrote Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire (2008). 3) BBC radio series: This Sceptred Isle Vol 6: The First British Empire 1702-1760 Rjensen (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not used all the time by British writers, that is simply not true. The terms are never used in normal British or Commonwealth parlance, it is just 'The British Empire'. The empire was entirely linear from the time John Cabot and his band of Bristolians became the first Europeans to make landfall in the mainland Americaa in Newfoundland all the way to the 20th century. (Columbus arrived in the West Indies) We do not talk of a second, third or forth Roman Empire whenever they suffered a reverse; the Romans did not enter a new epoch when the legions left the Balkans or Britain in 410 to defend the motherland from the barbarian hordes, we just talk of the Western Roman Empire & the Byzantine Empire.

In the wikipedia article for the British Empire this was discussed at some length in March, where a compromise was agreed that the terms would be used with italics. --Godwhale (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a question of advanced historiography and the standard book on the subject is Winks ed Historiography = Volume 5 (1999) of The Oxford History of the British Empire it discusses the issue and uses the terms on pp viii,xvii, 12, 28, 36, 42-46, 48, 50-54,58, 60, 71, 79, 90, 100, 115, 134, 149, 336, 614, 623, 624, 665, and 707. If you read up a little bit we can discuss this some more. As for popular history, perhaps you missed the BBC radio series: This Sceptred Isle Vol 6: The First British Empire 1702-1760? Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the Roman Empire is a great example of a similar concept; the first phase of the empire is referred to as the Principate, the second phase as the dominate, signalling the political shift caused by the Third Century Crisis, and in the last phase of the Empire's existence we refer to it as Byzantium. Obviously the Romans never recognized such changes, and viewed the Empire as continuing uninterrupted from its founding until the fall of Constantinople, and referred to themselves as "Romans" and the Empire as "Roman" throughout. When significant changes in historical entities occur, historians mark that change by referring to them differently. Wikipedia, based off of historians' works, does the same. It doesn't represent bias, just a convenient way of marking change. Rwenonah (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. Wikipedia is full of bias. Thats the whole problem. That's why I get reverted not only on articles but also on talkpages, and get accused of 'soapboxing' by certain editors who have a particular world view, even though its all fully cited using books written by academics and fully in accordance with the rules. On these pages we see editors making up their own rules and demanding that only 'mainstream viewpoints' are used, or only 'recent scolarship' is referenced in articles, and that when someone is reverted they must build a 'consensus' before being allowed to make that same point agin. That of course is ideal if a larger conservative groups seek to censor facts that they re outraged by, even though they might happen to be true--Godwhale (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To quote Nietzsche, "There are no facts, only interpretations." The prevailing scholarly interpretation should also prevail on Wikipedia, per the reliable source policy. If other significant views exist, they are treated with the degree of acceptance they receive among scholars. That's exactly what's occurred here, and occurs on wikipedia in almost all cases. You presented no sources; your view was rejected. There's no bias there, just the reality that your "truth" was unsupported by scholars. Regardless, I'd say this discussion is resolved and it's time to stop beating a dead horse . Rwenonah (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Next time I'm discussing this with some bloke in a pub, I must remember to ask him if he's referring to the First British Empire or the Second British Empire, and to tell him that there were actually two empires, not one. I must remember to tell him that this is because the 'advanced historiography', the denizens of Wikipedia and thier associated sockpuppets say so. I'm sure he'll understand.

Three things. First, wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and if you dislike that, you're free to write a blog where you aren't limited by such considerations. Second, stop beating a dead horse. Third, people don't talk about the British Empire and historiographical opinion about it in pubs. Rwenonah (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Laughing. I am of two minds: would such a pub be the most or least interesting? Juan Riley (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Expanding into Native American territory.

How is it that our accounts of what lead to the American Revolution focus more on the Boston Tea Party than more substantial reasons, such as Great Britain's limited expansion into Native American Territories. In barely more than 50 years, our "great country" sent the natives on a death march to a prison camp in the worst part of the continent. Great Britain would not have allowed that. Let us be honest about who we are and who we have always been.

From the very beginning, the American history, our history, that we have been taught is a lie! We were established to keep the taxes here, exploit the "new world" and to exploit and devour anything and everything in the name of capitalism and to feed and exploit the ignorance of those who are simple enough to fight to spread democracy while they pledge allegiance to a republic..... and think it is the same.

One need not wonder why we are so hated throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E8A:4500:2583:821C:4CD7:7AA5 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Its true that the bias in these articles is utterly breathtaking; I have myself been accused of trolling and online bullying by one US editor because he took my critisisms of the version of events as a personal insult. I have indeed been forthright but this has been more as a result of sheer esasperation that anything else. However I recently made some changes to the 'other' article on the revolution mentioning the importance of NA lands, slavery and smuggling, and apart from one incident, have not been reverted as much as i assumed i would be. So maybe there is hope after all. The constant mention of the Boston Tea Party is really a red herring, which was not about protesting taxes but more the protection of smuggling interests because its fairly benign and draws attention away from the real causes, and the subsequent harrassing and lynching of the other losers, the loyalists --Godwhale (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mainsteam historical secondary references please....not POV. Juan Riley (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not POV. This is the same arguement used by Rjensen- that because there are hundreds of books that perpetuate the 'orthodox' version of the war taught in schools, only these 'mainstream' sources can be used. This is not the case at all.

For an account of what happened to the loyalists, refer to 'Liberty's Exiles' by Maya Jasanoff. For a sensible, non fatuous pseudo-patriotic nonsensical discussion of the role of smuggling interests in the the Boston Tea Party and the run up to the war, read 'Smuggler Nation' by Peter Andreas. For an account of how the revolutionaries could not have won without French & Spanish financial help, and loans they never repaid, in spite of what it says in Wiki, try 'Spain & the Independence of the United States; An Intrinsic Gift' by Thomas E Chavez. For a discussion of the role of seizing Indian lands in the war, read just about any reasonable journal on the ethnic cleansing of the Red Man in the 19th Century. And for an honest discussion of the main reason, the determination to maintain slavery, and that Liberty! really meant the freedom to oppress others, read 'Slave Nation' by A&R Blumrosen, The Counter Revolution of 1776 by G Horne and best of all, 'Rough Crossings' by Simob Schama. But I know you won't. All men are created Free. As long as you're not black, red, or a loyalist. The patriots were the bad guys. But they won, so wrote their own version of history --Godwhale (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Several thousand historians Over the last century have worked over the primary sources, and when anyone writes on these topics they evaluate it very carefully and publicly in one of several dozen scholarly journals. The result is a community of scholars that Wikipedia explicitly depends upon for its credibility. Godwhale ignores that community, and takes quite a different approach to history. He only looks for evidence of things he thinks makes the Patriots look bad: Here is how he phrases it "The patriots were the bad guys." That's a pretty heavy load of POV to carry. Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You only have to look at what the New York Times called the 'Conservative freakout' last year when some minor changes were made to the APUSH history outline in an attempt to give a slightly more balanced view and alluiding to other factors, so much so that officials at the College Board were forced to issue an open letter defending themselves against charges that it was anti-American. I can't think of anywhere else where this would happen. In the Washington Post Ben Carson was quoted as saying that “most people” who complete the course would then be “ready to sign up for ISIS.” You have to ask what are conservatives are affraid of. It is pretty common for anyone who tries to challenge the orthodox view to be accused of being a liberal bedwetter, of not loving their country or of undermining the values the country holds dear. The dishonesty lies not in what is included in the othodox view but in what is left out. Where slavery or smuggling is included in the OV it is only as a footnote. It never forms part of the main narrive on the war and events leading up to it. Another major problem is that you only ever hear the narrative from the patriot persective, never the loyalist perspective or both. This is deliberate, and critical to the deception. In Europe & Canada, the war is commonly seen as a civil war, but not in the US, because if that were so it would be necessary to hear to loyalist viewpoint, and about what was done to them by the Sons of Liberty before the war and after they had lost. Readers never hear about the Dunsmore Proclamation and that slaves escaped from their masters in droves to the British lines, only that 'some' (a tiny proportion) of slaves fought for the patriot cause. Readers rarely if ever get told that after the war an underground network was put in place to help slaves escape 'the land of the free' to British Canada. Instead, the relatively minor Boston Tea Party - barely mentioned at all until about 1840 - and the coercive acts are given as the primary cause of the war. Likewise, the seizure of the Indian lands is portrayed as a by-product of the war; readers are never told that Washington wrote to an associate, William Crawford on September 21, 1767 to "look me out a Tract of about 1500, 2000 acres...A Tract to please me must be rich (of which no Person can be a better judge than yourself) and if possible to be good and level for I can never look upon that Proclamation in any other light (but this I say between ourselves)I recommend it to you to keep this whole matter a profound Secret;...because I might be censurd for the opinion I have given in respect to the King's Proclamation...and that the [operation] be snugly carried on by you under the pretence of hunting other Game. (Source: J.C, Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, (39 vols., Washington, 1931 1944), II, 467 471.)--Godwhale (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, all studies I've read about the Revolution include the fact that one factor was the Americans wanted to expand the territories beyond the Appalachian Mountains, and that Great Britain was against it, mainly because Great Britain did not want pay for the army necessary allow settlement. That includes, FYI, my grammar school and high school classes in US history, in addition to college, so it's not suppressed history. "Great Britain would not have allowed it" is where you venture into POV. (Canada also spans the continent). European politics was mostly about European (ie, imperial) politics, and that is why exploiting the 'civil war' (or whatever monarchists would refer to a war they want to support that would throw out a monarch) was seen as a good thing --- undermining the British would allow other empires to grab opportunity (it was a world war before it finished). As for the natives, well, Europe saw the US as expansionist from the very beginning, but you get into POV the minute you get into contemplating why. The presence of a large nation on the borders of their colonies would threaten their ownership of those colonies should always be considered one major factor (one reason Napoleon sold the Louisiana territories was to counter the influence of the British empire). Respect for the lives and dignity of the "savages" may have been a factor, but not a driving one, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well said 71.160.33.132. Juan Riley (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Do the Dutch Republic and the mysore really should be in the infobox? Both had fought their own wars again Great Britain with no relation to the United States. They don't seem to be included in the strength and casualties figures anyway. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the article and were co-belligerent with the United States France and Spain against the UK, they belong in the Infobox as cobelligerants. The Dutch and Mysore wars were merely subsidiary conflicts of the greater American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So the sultan of Mysore had an interest in America independence. Interesting to know. SuffrenXXI (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Co-belligerent does not mean ally. Unfortunately there are (as far as I know) no separate names for the near global war of these years and that for the North American theater--in contrast to French and Indian War vs the Seven Year War. Thus various editors insist that the American Revolutionary War subsumes all these conflicts and thus that Mysore and Dutch components be listed here. Juan Riley (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)