Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about American Revolutionary War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Talk page clean up
Talk page clean-up
|
|---|
|
It was suggested that some of the dated sections on this Talk page be removed, which I tend to agree with as the Talk page is a 'mile' long, making it difficult for new-commers and others to navigate the discussions. I've removed a few, but if anyone feels that a given section should be restored, they'll get no objection from me. Sooner or later the archive bot will remove sections that are no longer active anyway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean to sort through the Talk:ARW sections to reduce the 36 sections to only those that are still under active consideration. I will try to represent posts archived OLDER than 21 days with a summary that can be used to carry forward those discussions anew by any editor interested in picking up the thread. For the purposes of this section, each archived discussion may classify Editors into one of three categories:
In terms of article inprovement, and neutrality, we need to define, specifially, what the article, at this late date, may be lacking. Certainly renaming the article War of the American Revolution (global) is obsurd, given the title used by historians, everywhere, for the last 200+ years, and considering that the ARW was initiated for the sole purpose of American independence. For the sake of the average reader, any contentions regarding the lack of NPOV in the actual article need to be speicfially defined, and substantiated, in no uncertain terms. As RS's go, we should just use them to substantiate the long established facts, and let the readers determine matters of opinion for themselves. Any source that asserts a debatable or otherwise controversial opinion should be avoided. At this point, when a reader sees the NPOV tag and comes to the Talk page wondering why, I fear they will roll their eyes back and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
|
A "sister article"
A "SISTER ARTICLE" to this one was previously supported here by 4 editors as suggested by Lord Cornwallis. The goal of an article about the "War of American Independence" would be comparable to the coverage at War of Austrian Succession for another worldwide conflict (Clodfelter) within the Second Hundred Years' War (Creeley). The years would be (1775-1784), or alternatively (1778-1783).
The SISTER ARTICLE would properly place the "American theater" in context for that GLOBAL war as is done for War of Austrian Succession - North America: ONE PARAGRAPH for the comparatively SMALL contribution to European Great Power conflict made in the Western Hemisphere Americas by British, French and Spanish colonials towards major battles influencing the European's continental balance of power and imperial reach worldwide, with their comparatively negligible numbers of committed troops and ships, or casualties and vessels lost, within the global scheme of events.
At that ONE paragraph, there is a Main article link to King George's War with a scope that encompasses conflict in North America. The proposed "SISTER ARTICLE" might likewise feature one paragraph on the portion of the worldwide conflict in North America, with a Main article link to American Revolutionary War, here.
Editors may agree HISTORIOGRAPHICALLY for the purpose of organizing Wikipedia military articles within that WIKIPROJECT, that:
- The "American Revolutionary War" (1775-1783) is "grand-strategically" (militarily) a part of the Anglo-French wars in the "Second Hundred Years' War", without RESOLVING the question whether the Anglo-French wars (1689-1815) are a part of the "American Revolutionary War" to be consistent with the historiography of diplomatic or political history across the encyclopedia.
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
ARW timeline to end-of-war
At their respective articles on the “American Revolutionary War", the mainstream British scholarly references published at Britannica and Routledge say that the conflict was fought 1775-1783 between British subjects in North America and the North Atlantic; the war ended at the signing of the conclusive Peace of Paris on September 3, 1783 between the British Crown and the US Congress. Just for reference, here an updated timeline with corrections.
- Peace Timeline ending the ARW at the Treaty of Paris (1783)
-
- Late 1780. Prime Minister Lord North recognized the inevitable loss of the American Thirteen Colonies before launching the British 1781 southern strategy.
- 1. October 19, 1781. British DEFEAT at Yorktown in the American Revolutionary War.
- Nov 1781. Lord North exclaimed, “Oh, God, it’s all over!” at news of the Yorktown defeat.
- Dec 1781. Lord North defeated the bill to end the American colonial war by half-a-dozen votes.
- Apr 1782. British VICTORY at Battle of the Saintes in the Antilles War.
- 2. March 5, 1782. Parliament recommended that George III conduct no further offensive war in North America;
- Mar 1782. British VICTORY at Mangalore in the Mysore War
- Mar 1782. War Prime Minister Lord North removed, replaced by peace party Whig Lord Rockingham, then peace with US independence was negotiated by Lord Shelburne.
- Sep 1782. British VICTORY at Gibraltar in its Bourbon war.
- 3. November 30, 1782. The Preliminary Peace settlement was signed by British & US ministers at Paris.
- The signed agreement met the 1777 Congressional peace aims: independence & British evacuation, territory west to the middle of the Mississippi, and the navigation rights “to the sea” granted to Britain in 1763.
- 4. December 5, 1782. George III announced for US independence, peace and trade in his Speech from the Throne at a public joint session of Parliament.
"Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two countries."
- 5. April 15, 1783. US Congress formally ratified the Preliminary Peace with its peace demands in by an Act of Congress 15 April 1783.
- Sep 1783. Final "conclusive" peace was signed September 3 at Paris by British and American ministers in accordance with the Act of Congress, the date that wp:reliable sources give as the end of the "American Revolutionary War".
- Jan 1784. Congress ratified the conclusive peace treaty.
- Apr 1784. Parliament ratified the conclusive peace treaty.
- May 1784. The two ratified copies of the Treaty were exchanged formally between GB & US ministers at Paris, making the effective date of the Treaty May 12, 1784 in accordance with Treaty provisions and diplomatic protocol.
- posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I need clarification on 'Bourbon War' or 'Antilles War' these are terms used ONLY on wikipedia. I have not seen any of these terms in any source or article. Also of note that this article was created by User:Red Rudy, User:AdjectivesAreBad, User:SuffrenXXI who is a well known Sock User called User:Vinukin (see sockpuppets of Vinukin). It was moved without authorisation while there was a discussion (including sock users) here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article Anglo-French War (1778) is maintained by three Wikiprojects since the sockpuppet dismissal, including the context to include the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the Battle of the Saintes there, supported by wp:reliable source authors, publishers, and books with academic journal reviews. The article is rated B-class by the WikiProject Military History, and B-high importance by the Wikiproject France and the Wikiproject United Kingdom.
- THERE, You may initiate an wp:request for comment among the three at Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783) to wp:delete the article page. Further disrupting this Talk page with a wall of words that is wp:other stuff will not get you HERE what you really want THERE. 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for the disruption, hope it didn't anger you too much. I was correct about 'Antilles War' and 'Bourbon War' which of course don't exist. As for the Anglo-French War (1778) article I have requested the merge with France in the American Revolutionary War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I need clarification on 'Bourbon War' or 'Antilles War' these are terms used ONLY on wikipedia. I have not seen any of these terms in any source or article. Also of note that this article was created by User:Red Rudy, User:AdjectivesAreBad, User:SuffrenXXI who is a well known Sock User called User:Vinukin (see sockpuppets of Vinukin). It was moved without authorisation while there was a discussion (including sock users) here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Move 'Financial debts' section
Per our earlier discussion on the move without objection, I’ll (1) move the ‘Financial Debts’ section to Talk:Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War, and (2) add a link in the ‘See also’ section, subsection “Topics of the Revolution” to the article, “Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War”, and (3) attempted a clean up of the Notes, References, and Bibliography here. Interested editors may want to help to integrate the sourced information there. In the event it is to be restored, here is the Talk: post I left there.
It includes several housekeeping footnote and citation elements I added before sending it over, restoring here would benefit from adding the Bibliographical citations in standard form, as well as perhaps four?related footnotes. I'll help out in the 'restore' if there is substantial objection to the move. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Financial debts
.jpg)
a three-dollar banknote
Congress had immense difficulties financing its war effort. [1] As the circulation of hard currency declined, the Americans had to rely on loans from France, Spain, and the Netherlands, saddling the young nation and its states with crippling debts. Congress attempted to remedy this by printing vast amounts of paper money and bills of credit to raise revenue, but the effect was disastrous: inflation skyrocketed and the paper money became virtually worthless. The inflation spawned a popular phrase that anything of little value was "not worth a continental".[2]
At the start of the war, the economy was flourishing in the colonies in spite of the British blockade. By 1779, however, the economy had almost collapsed.[3] By 1791, the United States had accumulated a national debt of approximately $75.5 million.[4][a] The French spent approximately 1.3 billion livres aiding the Americans, equivalent to 100 million pounds sterling (13.33 livres to the pound).[6][b]
Britain spent around £80 million and ended with a national debt of £250 million (£35.2 billion in today's money), generating a yearly interest of £9.5 million annually. The debts piled upon that which Britain had already accumulated from the Seven Years' War.[10][c]
- ^ The nation finally solved its debt and currency problems in the 1790s when Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton secured legislation by which the national government assumed all of the state debts and created a national bank with a funding system based on tariffs and bond issues that paid off the foreign debts.[5]
- ^ Britain had a very efficient taxation system,[7] but the French tax system was grossly inefficient and led to a financial crisis in 1786.[8] The debts contributed to a worsening fiscal crisis that culminated in the French Revolution at the end of the century.[9] On the eve of the French Revolution, the national debt had risen to 12 billion livres.[6]
- ^ Wartime taxation upon the British populace averaged approximately four shillings in every pound, or 20 percent. [11]
- ^ Nettles, 1962, 1994, p. 23-24
- ^ "Not worth a continental Archived July 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine", "Creating the United States", Library of Congress. Retrieved January 14, 2012
- ^ Ferling, 2007, p. 201
- ^ Trescott, 1955, pp. 227-245
- ^ Kennedy, 2011, p. 136
- ^ a b Schiff, 2006, p. 5
- ^ Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987) pp. 81, 119
- ^ Marston, 2002, p. 82
- ^ Tombs, 2006, p. 179
- ^ Tombs, 2006, p. 179
- ^ Conway, 1995, p. 280
- Conway, Stephen (1995). The War of American Independence 1775–1783. E. Arnold. ISBN 978-0-1997-5847-0.
- Ferling, John E. (2007). Almost a Miracle. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0340625201.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|authormask=ignored (|author-mask=suggested) (help) - Kennedy, David; et al. (2011). The Brief American Pageant: A History of the Republic, Volume I: To 1877. Cengage Learning. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-495-91535-5.
- Nettles, Curtis P. (1994). The Emergence of a National Economy, 1775-1815. Routledge. p. 82. ISBN 978-0873320962.
- Marston, Daniel (2002). The American Revolution, 1774-1783. Osprey. p. 82. ISBN 978-1841763439.
- Schiff, Stacy (2006). A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America. Macmillan. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4299-0799-6.
- Trescott, Paul B. (September 1955). "Federal-State Financial Relations, 1790–1860". The Journal of Economic History. 15 (3): 227–245. JSTOR 2114655.
- Tombs, Robert; Tombs, Isabelle (2006). That Sweet Enemy: The French and the British from the Sun King to the Present. Knopf Doubleday. p. 179. ISBN 978-1-4000-4024-7.>
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
If any of the sources involved are no longer used in the article they should be removed from the Bibliography. While it seems that most of this information indeed belongs in an other article, we should still mention some central points in an appropriate place in the narrative. e.g.The general statement that, "Congress had immense difficulties financing its war effort. ... The Americans had to rely on loans from France, Spain, and the Netherlands, saddling the young nation ... with crippling debts." — Connecting articles should have some degree of contextual overlap, and this would connect well with and further prompt the reader to check into the 'ARW costs' article.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- (1) Okay, I'll look to the 'orphaned' citations.
- (2) Agreed. (a) I put the "Main article" link from the former section into the article 'See also' section. (b) My stab at the task of adding back something from "Finances of the American Revolution" was to wrap Army finances & provisioning, markets & transportation, all into a "Analysis-United States-Logistics" section. I believe it to be a little longish, even though I buried lots of detail of interest to this old Marine supply officer into the 'Notes'. Please have at the passages for a trim. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Done: Removed Bibliography cites without footnotes; ce to sync code ‘ref=’ to linked footnotes; Converted old cites to standard. Removed “Further reading” titles from article Bibliography.- I'm still amidst some double-checking, to now go the other way, to ensure no footnotes are without citations - - in the last case like that, I found NO 'ref=ammerman' as found at the 'cite book' template, but there ARE footnotes for 'ref=ammerman9', so I restored the citation with a 'ref=ammerman9', we're good there now . . .
- METHODOLOGY: Titles listed in the ARW Bibliography with the standard footnoting system adopted for this article with no active footnotes have been removed. Those citations were (a) with a ‘ref=nameYEAR’, and only one (1) ‘search’ hit; (b) with a ‘ref=name#’, or ‘ref=namename’ and only one (1) hit; or (c) with a ‘ref=name’, and only two (2) hits in the bibliography cite alone, no footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020
 | This edit request to American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a some closing curly braces to the sfn template starting with: "The colonies had never been formally united prior to the conflict and there was no centralized area of ultimate strategic importance." Right now you can see the start tag "{{sfn|" in the html output. Thanks!
Tazdar (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are much bigger problems, like transclusions of non-existent templates, plus all sorts of off-the-wall ref formatting. There's been a flurry of activity here lately, and I guess something got severely broken, but I'd rather not attempt to fix it without just rolling way back to before this all went wrong. I'd suggest that the regular page editors do this. I'll leave the request open for someone who can actually figure out what's going on here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: Done (?) Copied the formatting from this edit, which fixed the formatting but was reverted for other reasons. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis:
Discussion on French Revolution
As the BritClique is now in the process of censoring the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution, it would seem appropriate to inform editors of this page that a discussion is currently going on here. Please contribute. 021120x (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will look into this soon. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Mysore and position of spain
-during the war, the kingdom of Mysore was mostly an American Co-belligerent, as it fought against the British at the same time the US was rebelling against them, so i think it should be put into the co-belligerent section. the source i have is this paragraph into the page anglo mysore wars:
"The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–84) witnessed bloodier battles with fortunes fluctuating between the contesting powers. Tipu defeated Baillie at the Battle of Pollilur in Sept. 1780, and Braithwaite at Kumbakonam in Feb. 1782, both of whom were taken prisoner to Seringapatam. This war saw the rise of Sir Eyre Coote, the British commander who defeated Hyder Ali at the Battle of Porto Novo and Arni. Tipu continued the war following his father's death. Finally, the war ended with the signing of a treaty on 11 March 1784, the Treaty of Mangalore, which restored the status quo ante bellum. The Treaty of Gajendragad in April 1787 ended the conflict with the Marathas..[1]
-about Spain, it should be put in the Belligerent Section, as it fought alongside the americans and even sent troops to help them, different from the dutch and mysore, that fought agaisnt britain but in the other side of the world, not helping the US directly.
- ^ Naravane, M.S. (2014). Battles of the Honorourable East India Company. A.P.H. Publishing Corporation. pp. 173–175. ISBN 9788131300343.
Arandomitalo-japaneseamerican (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- France was an ALLY of the US Congress for fourteen months. The Franco-American treaty for defensive war to guarantee American independence and to preserve free trade at their Treaty of Alliance (1778) from 6 February 1778, until fourteen months later, when France abrogated it with a secret Franco-Spanish treaty between the Bourbon kings for offensive war to acquire territory for imperial expansion and to invade England at their Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) on 12 April 1779. (Morris 1983, p.33) - - - After 19 October 1781, no fighting anywhere in the world can initiated by a “belligerent” in the American Revolutionary War, nor a “co-belligerent” of the US Congress in their fight for independence, because at that date, there was no more conflict (belligerency) between Britain and the independence Congress.
- France and Spain were co-belligerents with the US for just under three years (31 months) . Co-belligerency with the US from Aranjuez small>12 April 1779 takes place in places that can be related to the British subjects in America attaining their political independence from Great Britain. That status extends until the time the US is no longer a belligerent. Shortly after British surrender at Yorktown 19 October 1781, the British and Americans entered into a worldwide ceasefire, then an armistice in early 1782. By April Congress had de-funded its Army and Navy, furloughing its soldiers home “to remain until the conclusive peace”, when their regiments were formally disbanded without reassembling.
- The Second Anglo-Mysore War is sparked by the Bourbon Kings declaring war on Britain. The Franco-Spanish Alliance based on their Pacte de Famille and the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779). They declare war on Britain for imperial gain, not to guarantee US independence (as was the case in the previous FR-US Treaty of Alliance). Britain does not seize the French port of Mahé, India, to put down the Thirteen Colony rebellion in North America. There is no document evidence to connect the French defense of Mahé as its material assistance to the American rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- "France was an ALLY of the US Congress for fourteen months..." I'm hoping that's a simple mistake - the Treaties were not cancelled until the Convention of 1800, and more importantly obliged the US to defend French interests in the Carribean during the 1792 to 1797 War of the First Coalition. That dispute drove the Quasi-War, is why Congress refused to approve any treaties until the 1945 UN Treaty (yes), and why the US still has a tendency to sign agreements (eg NAFTA, opening to Cuba etc), then abrogate them. Its a really significant point, and one to get right. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback from Military Project Assessment Request
I've applied again for a second article assessment at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, noting:
- - ELEVEN-CATEGORIES IMPROVED, recap & new: 1. Intro & all sections place colonies in First British Empire context throughout; - 2. Infobox balanced Am & GB leaders, cmdrs, added Sp & Fr cmdrs, distinguished among ‘belligerent-ally’ Fr, ‘co-belligerent’ Sp & Dutch, ‘combatants’ in ARW battles: Indian & German units, trim ‘losses’ detail; - 3. Boston-centered narrative trim; 4. diplomatic trim & detail to sister article; - 5. All-images ‘alt=’ descriptions; - 6. All-caption copyedits to remove Patriot bias; - 7. balanced images ADDING British leaders, British commanders, British fighting; - 8. Added Indian regular colonels (1) GB & (1) US; - 9. Added woman fighting; - 10. Added Royal Navy ships, US ships, French ships; and, - 11. Added or rewrote Harvard reference for all citations as required.
- (1) Positive feedback from Svejk74, of the Irish Maritime Project: "On a broader point, still unresolved, I think the article is far too long and diffuse. There's plenty of solid information there, but not structured in a particularly helpful way - I found myself scrolling down the page looking for an entry point into what actually happened. I realise this is a large and complex topic (particularly compared to the small-scale Early Modern stuff I usually work on!) but if something like the War of the Spanish Succession can be explained concisely, this can too. You have enough information for several Good Articles there."
- And again, "My own instinct would be to take out material like the comparison of the different leaders and combatants and the detailed material on logistics, weapons, etc and either a) use it to create subsidiary articles or b) use it to beef up any existing ones. - - This gives you the opportunity to keep the main article focused on the political / economic background and the central events of the conflict without taking the reader off into a discussion of "molar-breakers", corporal punishment in the military, musket types, Howe's "crapulous mornings", etc. This stuff should be retained, just not perhaps in a place where it breaks up the main thrust of the article."
- (2) An encouraging note from Hawkeye7, an Australian coordinator for the Military History Project:
"An article like this is tremendously difficult, and you are to be congratulated for taking it on."
Next section: an outline of things-to-do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Five general category-sections
I see the article as now composed of five general category sections, but all the common elements are not adjacent to one another in five groups.
- 1. Infobox.
- 2. Introduction.
- 3. Background: political & social history, earlier wars & diplomacy.
- 4. Conflict and aftermath - the focus of this article.
- 5. Participants: sections detailing each belligerent, co-belligerent, and combatant, armies & navies, commanders & units, logistics & army life.
So, without objection, I’ll start the process of “sorting them” first, before anything else. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The Intro and the 'RS' school teacher
An editor has made attempts to introduce Mr. John D. Granger to our Bibliography, a school teacher who writes of historical things. His book The Battle of Yorktown: A Reassessment, is on record as having been sent to an academic journal for review, but in the fifteen years since its publication, there is no record that any academic journal has chosen to review it as a scholarly work. See a JSTOR all-database search for the title's "book review". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- What about Jerone Greene then? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Contested detail is NOT for the Introduction
- At the Intro an insert was made to “add major point” here for
” The Yorktown campaign did not end the war but it was the last major battle on the American mainland as the fighting continued for two more years”
. I reverted it here, “Intro should NOT contain a detail not in the Article. It is contested, it must be in 'Aftermath' with a citation”. The Introduction is not the place for the editor to "make a point" not previously made in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Intro paragraph continuity
- AT THE INTRO, citing the reason, "ce: Introduction - paragraphing continuity: place 'Yorktown aftermath’ sentence with paragraph, 'In America, 1778-Yorktown’ paragraph – NOT as the topic sentence for paragraph on 'British Parliament & British Treaty." I added sourced material here from a Spanish scholar citing Frank de Varona, the editor of an academic journal, Hispanic Presence in the United States: Historical Beginnings, Miami.
- This is the Intro for the American Revolutionary War, so I re-cast the sentence, RESULT: War between Britain and France allied with Spain dragged on for another two years over their imperial aims called out in the Treaty of Aranjuez.[a]
- ^ The Bourbon Family Pact obligated Spain to fight after American Independence, and its own stated goal there was to recover Gibraltar from the British regardless of Americans achieving independence.[1] Spain was an ally of France, but not of America.[2]
- ^ Yaniz. 2009, p. ii
- ^ Yaniz. 2009, p. i, quoting Frank de Varona in the journal, Hispanic Presence in the United States: Historical Beginnings”, Miami
- Yaniz, Jose I. (2009). "The Role of Spain in the American Revolution: An Unavoidable Mistake" (PDF). Marine Corps University.
Spain declared war on Great Britain in June 1779 as an ally of France but not of America … The Bourbon Family Compact obligated Spain with commitments to France; and the Spanish Crown answered the call. Madrid thus took an unavoidable political strategic mistake.
- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Sub-section: British defeat in America
- Here, I copyedited an awkwardly written sentence, and joined the one-sentence paragraph hanging at the end of the section.
- RESULT: The last sentence in the last paragraph narrating the conclusion of the Siege of Yorktown, now reads: “Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland, but Britain fought France and Spain elsewhere for two more full years.”[Grainger footnote]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- How about if I put this which reflects thr overal reality. Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought globally France, Spain and Holland for two more full years.” Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Dutch Republic should not be equated with Holland. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought France, Spain and the Dutch Republic globally for two more full years.” 👍 Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Good, or a smoother read might be for the second sentence: ... on the American mainland. But for the next two years, Britain would continue its global fight with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. Your choice. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought France, Spain and the Dutch Republic globally for two more full years.” 👍 Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Dutch Republic should not be equated with Holland. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- How about if I put this which reflects thr overal reality. Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought globally France, Spain and Holland for two more full years.” Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Section missing
There seems to be a lack of a section in the aftermath of the war after Yorktown. Perhaps we could add a section with what happened in the minor campaigns after Yorktown on the North American mainland. Clearly there was fighting such as at the Battle of the Blue Licks, Battle of the Delaware Capes and the American Privateer raids on Nova Scotia. As Edward G. Lengel mentions in his 2012 book 'A Companion to George Washington' as critical as the victory at Yorktown was to the American cause it did not end the war. and a good link here The War Did Not End at Yorktown by James Ambler Johnston, 'The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography' Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1952), pp. 444-457 or one could go further and quote David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro's The American Revolution: A World War on page 221, in relation to British victories at Gibraltar and Saintes in 1782 - these not the siege of Yorktown were the last engagements of the American Revolution. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are dozens of minor battles and skirmishes that are not covered in this article - no need to start including the few that occurred after Yorktown. Such a section would be better placed contextually in the Yorktown campaign article. A summary statement about continued fighting, which you've just included, is sufficient for purposes of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to include them in regards to the fact that there was fighting going on after Yorktown I will include section at some point or sub section a part of the aftermath. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wayne's Savannah campaign, Greene's operations around Charleston and the continuing campaigning in the western theater all need to be mentioned at the very least.XavierGreen (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The battles in of themselves were rather obscure, like many other battles that are not covered in this article. The important consideration in that summary section is that some of the fighting continued regardless of the ceasefire. This article only covers major battles and events. Concern was expressed also that the ARW article is too long, so we shouldn't be adding another section just to belabor the idea that there was some minor fighting that continued, which is the primary consideration here. There are dedicated articles to cover these sorts of battles. There's no need to do so here. If this is a pressing issue for you we can always add a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- EXACTLY
"The battles in and of themselves were rather obscure."
So, alongside the Battle of the Saintes in Spring of 1782, editors would have us compare the British defense against the American Savannah campaign as an example of comparable British military engagements that year? Let us see. As found in the JAR by Hugh T. Harrington, published by Bruce H. Franlklin (a XavierGreen source), Savannah with a British-German garrison of 1000 professional soldiers were loosely surrounded by a Americans under General Greene it is true, General Wayne commanding 400 who promptly burned all the forage on farms surrounding Savannah a half-mile to create a no-man’s land. - - American forces consisted of one company of Georgia militia, a detachment of Continental dragoons, and mostly a hodge-podge of (a) untrained Loyalist “reclaimed citizens” who enlisted in 1782 (after Yorktown Oct ‘81), to regain title to their confiscated property, and (b) Hessian deserters who in garrison were not trusted to sentry duty in the center-city. Proclamations were snuck into Savannah:
“A full pardon and protection, plus 200 acres of land, a cow and two breeding swine were offered to anyone who had joined the British or sought protection with them on condition that they surrender to General Wayne and agree to serve under him until the enemy either surrendered or left Georgia.”
- - Wayne conducted “small, sometimes very small, raids and ambushes", with a few dozen casualties on both sides. He lost his Carolina (Continental) Dragoons 6 February 1782, their terms of enlistment having expired. All Continental regiments nationwide were to be furloughed home by Act of Congress May 1782, effective in June by Washington's General Order (before Gibraltar). Given the British policy of withdrawal for commitment in the Caribbean (not Gibraltar), they withdrew to Charleston unopposed by Wayne, a half-mile away in all directions.
- After October 1781, there were additional raids and ambushes against American settlement and fur trappers unauthorized by the British, by rogue Loyalists and Indians along the western frontier for the most part, far removed from British command and control, not under Royal command, and not funded by London. ON BALANCE, NOT OF SIGNIFICANCE for an encyclopedia article surveying the entire American Revolutionary War, other than one (1) summary sentence, to the effect:
- “Yorktown ended campaigning by the British against American independence, the colonial war Prime Minister was ousted in Parliament, and the peace Whigs began the peace-making process culminating in a Preliminary Peace 30 November 1782. Afterwards former British allies among Loyalists and Indians occasionally raided and ambushed American settlements and fur traders leading up to later American-Indian wars in the Cherokee southwest and the Shawnee northwest against their former British-allied foes.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes that happened, campaigns took place but not on a scale of Yorktown, but there was NO CEASEFIRE. On February 4, 1783, it was King George III that declared a permanent ceasefire to the American Revolution, that was when all fighting ended. unauthorized by the British? Do you think that Captain Thomas Frederick was reprimanded for his victory over the US navy in the Battle of the Delaware Capes. One thing is for sure the Royal Navy disrupted American trade with a blockade and this began to effect US efforts to raise money as well as causing a drop-off in trade. This was further complicated by France's reluctance to extend more loans. This meant that in 1782 Congress put troops on half pay BUT all Continental regiments nationwide were furloughed home by Act of Congress in June 1783 not the year before. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have split the Aftermath section from the Treaty and peace of Paris; the latter of which I have also copyedited and placed in chronological order. There is also some repetition which have also removed. I hope it is better. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Will fix the footnote errors shortly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks okay. I was pleasantly surprised with the reference that Gibraltar "became involved" in the ARW in that it drew away resources from the U.S. continent - comprehensive, and not misleading. Also, I would not object to a footnote after the sentence -- "Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland, but Britain fought France and Spain elsewhere for two more full years", enumerating the battles that followed the ceasefire. My only passing objection is using the 'History place' as a reference. With all the credentialed scholarly works on the ARW it seems we could come up with a source, or two, with a recognized name attached, but for now it will do.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Gibraltar reference was already there, as was the 'History Place' citation but will check anlther source. Noted that Grainger uses the sentence To begin at the end: the battle of Yorktown was the prelude to two more full years of fighting; definitive peace did not arrive until November 1783 in his book - 'Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Reassessment'. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- More accurately, it was two more years of provoked and inconsequential skirmishes not even mentioned by nearly all the sources on the ARW. Let's not lose sight of, or try to diminish, the idea that it was Yorktown, overall, that ended major fighting and dissolved the will to continue the fight in Parliament, ultimately sending many of the British garrisons and fleets sailing off to defend their possessions in the West Indies, etc. Added a couple of points using Ketchum, 2014, Victory at Yorktown. Still checking other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed it was as I have said, offensive actions on the American mainland were cancelled by Parliament in early 1782. We might put a section called End of the War which could include the the Navy campaign off the American coast where there was continued fighting (the Royal Navy blockade actually tightened even more after 1781). However I'll leave that for someone else as (apart from Royal naval blockade) I know scant about the minor campaigns led by Greene around Charleston, Wayne's campaign around Savannah, the western theater where the biggest battles took place after Yorktown and the American Privateer raids on Nova Scotia. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- More accurately, it was two more years of provoked and inconsequential skirmishes not even mentioned by nearly all the sources on the ARW. Let's not lose sight of, or try to diminish, the idea that it was Yorktown, overall, that ended major fighting and dissolved the will to continue the fight in Parliament, ultimately sending many of the British garrisons and fleets sailing off to defend their possessions in the West Indies, etc. Added a couple of points using Ketchum, 2014, Victory at Yorktown. Still checking other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Gibraltar reference was already there, as was the 'History Place' citation but will check anlther source. Noted that Grainger uses the sentence To begin at the end: the battle of Yorktown was the prelude to two more full years of fighting; definitive peace did not arrive until November 1783 in his book - 'Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Reassessment'. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks okay. I was pleasantly surprised with the reference that Gibraltar "became involved" in the ARW in that it drew away resources from the U.S. continent - comprehensive, and not misleading. Also, I would not object to a footnote after the sentence -- "Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland, but Britain fought France and Spain elsewhere for two more full years", enumerating the battles that followed the ceasefire. My only passing objection is using the 'History place' as a reference. With all the credentialed scholarly works on the ARW it seems we could come up with a source, or two, with a recognized name attached, but for now it will do.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Will fix the footnote errors shortly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the the American Privateer raids on Nova Scotia
means the South Carolina Navy NOT the aforementioned wp:ERROR US Navy. The SCN frigate South Carolina was a Holland-built vessel with a Holland-born captain and a foreign crew, rented from a French nobleman owed one-fourth all prize money. On its maiden voyage from Holland to the Caribbean, it captured ten British merchants, prized at Havana. But after the share owed the Chevalier of Luxembourg, South Carolina gained no net revenue from the raider’s operation before its capture out of Delaware Bay. See J.F. Cooper, p.135-136, History of the Navy of the United States of America at Internet Archive. Not sure about, the western theater where the biggest battles took place after Yorktown
ambushing six fur traders, and some got away … ? Second frontier raid, the Loyalists and Indians lost more in their attack than the surprised and ambushed defenders, a dozen or so on each side? See Clodfelter’s accounts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the South Carolina navy nor the fur trappers battles. Like I said that is for someone else to fill at some point. We mustn't forget the fighting - the biggest battles in the Western theater were the Crawford expedition or the Battle of the Blue Licks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- One can only wonder how effective a British blockade would have been if they were not allowed to engage the Americans after the ceasefire. Then, otoh, perhaps they were there to keep them pesky ol' Frenchmen from coming in. During this time Washington also issue a similar ceasefire for his troops. Did it allow for exceptions, which might explain some of the following battles? That's another area that seems a bit sketchy, at least for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Seems more rogue operations in North America separate from, and not condoned, by the Paris negotiators nor their governments in London or Philadelphia.
- - Sourced from Anderson’s biography of Colonel William Crawford archived by the Ohio Historical Society, the article at Crawford expedition reports “was a volunteer expedition and not a regular army operation”, so they elected one of three candidates for commanding officer. The Infobox reports Belligerent “Pennsylvanian militiamen”, but I believe by 1777, Pennsylvania militia elected company grade officers, but NOT their commanding officer, who was appointed by the Pennsylvania Assembly.
- - It would be interesting to drill down to see to the details among differences between 1782 Pennsylvania an Virginia militias, but we can make the editorial decision from 50,000 feet, this was not a Congressionally-sponsored campaign. The rogue operation did NOT materially impact the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace of November 1782, as Native Americans were not consulted, nor were the Indian Agents of either Britain or America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- One can only wonder how effective a British blockade would have been if they were not allowed to engage the Americans after the ceasefire. Then, otoh, perhaps they were there to keep them pesky ol' Frenchmen from coming in. During this time Washington also issue a similar ceasefire for his troops. Did it allow for exceptions, which might explain some of the following battles? That's another area that seems a bit sketchy, at least for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Surrender at Yorktown, ceasefire and Articles of Capitulation
Notes and sources to consider:
- Surrender at Yorktown: Articles of Captitulation (14 Articles)
- General Washington agreed to all of the Articles of Capitulation, the British terms of surrender, except the 10th, which asked that all Americans who fought with the British at Yorktown be pardoned. October 19, 1781, Yorktown, Virginia. < Ancestry.com >
- The Articles of Capitulation outlined the British terms of surrender. These articles were the precursor to the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the American Revolution in 1783. October 19, 1781, Yorktown, Virginia. Credit: Continental Congress-Papers Vol.10 Pg.305/Fold3 < Ancestry.com >
- Thacher, James (1827). A military journal of the American Revolution. Boston, Cottons & Barnard. See search: Articles of capitulation
- Johnston, Henry P. (1881). The Yorktown Campaign and the surrender of Cornwallis, 1781. New York, Harper & Brothers.
- Patton, Jacob Harris (1882). Yorktown: a compendious account of the campaign of the allied French and American forces, resulting in the surrender of Cornwallis and the close of the American revolution;. New York, Fords, Howard, & Hulbert.
Johnston's work covers the surrender very well, which also includes extracts from Washington's Journal covering the siege (p.166), correspondence between Washington and Cornwallis, Cornwallis' report of the Surrender (p.181), and the first hand accounts from the various officers present. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that the ceasefire didn't take effect until after February 4, 1783. In addition news would take a good month or more to get to the Americas. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the battles you mentioned before (on the Anglo-French (1778-1783) Talk page all occurred before that date:
- Battle of Blue Licks, Aug. 19, 1782
- Battle of the Delaware Capes, Dec. 20, 1782
- Action of 12 December 1782
- Action of 15 September 1782
- Even though it's more than inferred, The Articles of Capitulation don't specifically refer to any ceasefire. Both Washington and Cornwallis, however, ordered a ceasefire to their troops. 'Odd that it didn't take effect until well over a year later'. (?) Evidently that ceasefire only pertained to the immediate Yorktown campaign area, which I would assume would have taken effect immediately -- it would have been sort of pointless if it didn't. How else could the Articles of Capitulation, signed October 19, 1781, gone into effect? Where are you getting February 4, 1783 from? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the battles you mentioned before (on the Anglo-French (1778-1783) Talk page all occurred before that date:
- After Yorktown October 1781, both France and Spain delayed joining the Americans in peace negotiations with the British to secure American independence. Anglo-American cease-fire, armistice, and signed Preliminary Peace November 1782. In the meantime, France and Spain mounted joint offensives in early and late 1782 to take Jamaica, where Britain decisively defeated French at sea (Saintes), and then to take Gibraltar at their "Great (Final) Assault".
- - In January 1783 preliminary negotiations opened among Britain and the two Bourbon empires. The Spanish then could honorably lift its Great Siege of Gibraltar. After Anglo-American ceasefire, armistice and then Preliminary Peace was signed November 1782, February 4, 1783 is the Anglo-French-Spanish formal Paris ceasefire for their separate "War of 1778". The Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris was signed on 2 September 1783 in Paris, but it was not to take effect until the separate conclusive peace treaties between Britain with France and with Spain signed on 3 September 1783 in Versailles.
- - That sourced "War of 1788" is separate and apart from the "War of American Revolution" as found at Mahan 1890, p. 372, referred to in our mutually agreed-to wp:reliable source among four wp:editors here and at Anglo-French War (1778). - All in wp:good faith, to the best of my knowledge. Sorry, it's been 60 years since I read Mahan, 1890. - - - My takeaway previously had been the US Navy training motto, "We sweat in peace so you don't bleed in war." - - - last night I reread a few sections related to American Revolution, Chap.XII West India naval operations AFTER Yorktown in the "War of 1778", and Chap.XIII East India naval operations AFTER Yorktown in the "War of 1778" ...
"The principal parties to the War of 1778 were, on the one hand, Great Britain; on the other, the House of Bourbon, controlling the two great kingdoms of France and Spain."
[Mahan 1890, p.507] I hope to post a more thorough presentation of Mahan's war distinctions and terminology later, early tomorrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- February 4, 1783 is the date that King George III declares a permanent ceasefire to the American Revolution - meaning that was everywhere round the globe including America. 'How else could the Articles of Capitulation, signed October 19, 1781, gone into effect?' That is merely a local ceasefire. Again don't get confused with a local ceasefire or truce than an official ceasefire (Feb 4 1783). Also check the infobox dates - April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 (8 years, 4 months and 15 days). Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't term it quite so loosely. King George ordered a ceasefire to all the fighting, between belligerents fighting over American independence, and between France, Spain and Britain who were fighting for their own specific objectives. Once again, there is a distinct difference between those battles, most of which didn't occur until after Yorktown when finally Britain realized that the war over independence was over, and she was now free to commit resources to other campaigns involving completely different objectives. As said above, "that ceasefire only pertained to the immediate Yorktown campaign area", and as TVH pointed out, "February 4, 1783 is the Anglo-French-Spanish formal Paris ceasefire for their separate "War of 1778". The Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris was signed on 2 September 1783 in Paris, but it was not to take effect until the separate conclusive peace treaties between Britain with France and with Spain signed on 3 September 1783 in Versailles. i.e.Treaty of Paris. In any case, our treatment of the ceasefire, treaties, etc, should be covered nominally, as we have dedicated articles for these topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- The "War of American Revolution" (Mahan) ends formally as a shooting war 30 November 1782 at Article 7. of the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace. The George III 14 February 1783 Cessation of Hostilities does not abrogate it, it comprehensively EXTENDS the cessation of hostilities to both France and Spain with Preliminary Peace agreements, AND to the United Provinces without yet a Preliminary Peace.
- Anglo-American Preliminary Treaty 30 November 1782.
Article 7th. There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said States,
and between the subjects of the one, and the citizens of the other,wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall then immediately cease;
… we the United States in Congress assembled, have ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do ratify and confirm, the said articles, and every part, article and clause thereof… ”[1] - - George III Proclamation of Cessation of Arms 14 February 1783.
“Cessation of Arms, as well by sea as land, agreed upon by [King of England, of France, of Spain, Dutch Republic and the United States]
,“Whereas Provisional Articles were signed at Paris… [30 November 1782 for the United States]
, [20 January 1783 for France, 20 January 1783 for Spain, and unnamed for the United Provinces], …and whereas, for putting an end to the calamity of war as soon as may be possible, as agreed to by [Britain, France, Spain United Provinces and United States] as follows;"[2] - -
“whereas ratification of the said Preliminary Articles …were exchanged between [Britain and France]
on 3 February, and between [Britain and Spain] on 9 February…and [George III wants that all] Cessation of Hostilities should be agreeable to the epochs between [George III] and [Louis XVI], from and after the respective times above-mentioned”.[3] George III does not here renounce the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace of 30 November 1782. - - The rationale for the 14 February Proclamation for others, in addition to the Anglo-American peace and cessation of hostilities, “by land and sea, for all British subjects and American citizens”, was that peace “contained no provision for implementing, throughout the world”.[4] A like cessation of hostilities was required between Britain and France, Spain in their War of 1788,Cite error: A
<ref>tag is missing the closing</ref>(see the help page).
- ^ Congressional Proclamation, 1783, Cessation of Arms 15 April 1783
- ^ George III Prolamation, 1783, Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783
- ^ George III Prolamation, 1783, Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783
- ^ George III Prolamation, 1783, Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783, Note 2.
- - - Congress of the United States. "Proclamation of Cessation of Arms" (1783) [document]. Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, Series: American Memory, ID: 90898287. Washington DC: Library of Congress. 7 September 2929.
- - - George III. "Proclamation of the Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783". Founders Online. National Archives. Retrieved 7 September 2020.
- - - Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. Boston : Little, Brown and Company.
- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent, glad we're all in agreement. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's easy to see how some historians can lump all the battles under one heading. After all, Britain and France were always arch enemies, esp during the ARW, and after Yorktown, these same two enemies went sailing off to fight the Anglo-French wars involving their various possessions, which they have always been involved with throughout the 18th century. If some people want to loosely refer to these battles as "part of" the ARW it's no big deal - so long - as the distinction is made in the narrative and in any given info-box, that these were different battles fought elsewhere for different objectives, regardless if a couple of these battles were mentioned later in peace talks between Britain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent, glad we're all in agreement. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Cluttered infobox
EXCERPT. TVH, I think the infobox is too cluttered.
TFD (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- PROPOSAL. @The Four Deuces: I propose we copy-edit the Infobox 3rd and 4th categories for “Strength” and “Casualties and losses” related ONLY to conflict that is directly related to achieving or preventing American independence among British subjects in North America and the North Atlantic (including its geographical arms in the Caribbean Sea and the Irish Sea). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- PROBLEM DIAGNOSED (quick-estimate research). Scanning the two Infoboxes at American Revolutionary War (ARW), a British-subject civil war, and the Spanish Civil War (SCW), I note, SCW = total 4 categories comprised of 43 lines, ARW = total 4 categories comprised of 65 lines about one-third larger: (a) 1st & 2nd categories: SCW = 27 lines, ARW = 22 lines – roughly equivalent; and (b) 3rd & 4th categories: SCW = 16 lines, to ARW = 42 lines – about three-times larger.
- SOLUTION. - (1) report only casualties in North America, continental shelf & Caribbean Sea, 1775-1781 during the shooting war over American independence, (2) report the dead combined killed-in-action and by disease (note it), (3) report warships and privateers combined (note it), (4) exclude fringe engagements by time and space viz: 1774 Lord Dunmore's War, John Paul Jones in the Irish Sea, 1782 Greene's Savannah Encirclement & British uncontested withdrawal to Charleston. -- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Infobox image & six (6) options for discussion
I replaced the previous Infobox image, prominently featuring a British surrender parade at Yorktown.
As this article is self-proclaimed "about military actions primarily", I chose a replacement primarily because the French painter's image of an American contested assault is primarily about military action, as opposed to the previous anti-climatic parade - without the British commander present. --- Now, the topmost image for the ARW incorporates BOTH the two principle belligerents in the conflict: the post-winter-1777 Valley-Forge American Continentals versus British regulars.
Secondarily, The setting sun in Eugene Lami’s painting also symbolizes the close of the First British Empire. It represents US General Lafayette at the siege, and features Colonel Hamilton's command of Continental light infantry in the assault of Redoubt No. 10 at the Siege of Yorktown (the British manned Redoubt No. 10; Rochambeau's French troops under Washington's command were simultaneously assaulting Redoubt No. 9 which was manned by Hessians). Lafayette represents the very best of the French Enlightenment nobility supporting American independence...
The immediate impulse for the change is the agreed-upon consensus here on the ARW Talk page, that the Infobox was "too long" and "cluttered", visually pushing down into the article first-section. The smaller single-image contributed to shortening the Infobox when it replaced the larger collage. In addition, wp:image policy deprecates using the same image more than once in the same article. The painting, "Surrender of Cornwallis" is featured already in the section British defeat in America. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Images to consider for the lede
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.jpg)  Top: Alexander Hamilton leads Continental light infantry assault on Redoubt No. 10, Yorktown 1783. Bottom: George Washington rallies troops at Monmouth, 1778
 Top: George Washington rallies troops at Monmouth, 1778. Bottom: John Paul Jones captures the HMS Serapis.
Top: Alexander Hamilton leads Continental light infantry assault on Redoubt No. 10, Yorktown 1783. Center: George Washington rallies troops at Monmouth, 1778, Bottom: de Grasse l. at the Capes
Top: Alexander Hamilton leads Continental light infantry assault on Redoubt No. 10, Yorktown 1783. Bottom: John Paul Jones captures the HMS Serapis. | ||||||||||||||||
- - I can't yet get third image to appear for Option 'D', nor align the captions as I anticipated. TO BE TWEEKED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- We have several double images in the article already. It would seem for purposes of the lede, and focus, one singular image would work best. I would swap the current lede image of Hamilton at Yorktown, with the image of Washington at Yorktown. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added 'Washington at Yorktown' as Option B above ... If I could figure out the alignment and proportions, the BEST would be (a) OPTION 'B', left-half: Washington-Yorktown; PLUS OPTION 'F', (b) right-top-quarter: Redoubt No. 10; (c) right-bottom quarter: Jones-Serapis. Of course each image modified so the brightness of each aligned with the others ... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, image option B
seems the best. I'm still of the opinion that the lede image should be one image, as large as is practically possible. Multiple images seem to diminish the other in the confines of an info-box, esp because they must be rendered smaller to fit in there. I placed all the optional images in a collapsible box to condense the section. Feel free to revert if you like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- The collapsible box is THE solution for discussion threat and access-to-images together. THANKS. I added an inline image of your proposal for clarity to a scanning visitor.
- I get your collage point, to a point = too much is too small. But if we could get an assist on the set-up of a customized collage, a detail of each image might show larger, and so be satisfactory. So left-half-montage = ~left-half-Redoubt#10
; upper-right-half-montage = right-2/3-Washington-Monmouth 
; lower-right-half-montage = right-lower-1/3-Jones-Serapis 
. Maybe we can get both 'readable' images and 'action scenes'. You can click on each thumbnail for and enlargement for better recall of what each composition contains. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- We have several double images in the article already. It would seem for purposes of the lede, and focus, one singular image would work best. I would swap the current lede image of Hamilton at Yorktown, with the image of Washington at Yorktown. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really impressed with the multiple image idea. Imo, the lede should have one striking image, larger than all the others, to invite readers into the article. Still feel one large image in the info-box would work best. Since no one else seems to care, and it's not really a pressing issue for me, I'll let you make the call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I tried to summarize both our agreements and additional considerations in a post at Montage for Revolutionary War today. I hope I properly represented your expressed concerns for the image(s) to be large enough to be clearly discernible in the Infobox, and to prominently feature George Washington somehow. I based the proposal on three-images-cropped suggested in my last post. I ran it up the flagpole about eight hours ago, so far no one has saluted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- At the Infobox image, in what I believe to be a very successful collaboration at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop with Frietjes and PawełMM, I've posted a newly-created collage for this article by the author of the one previously used here:
.jpg)
- The caption reads concisely on three lines: Left, Continental infantry at Redoubt 10, Yorktown; Washington rallied the broken center at Monmouth; USS Bonhomme Richard captured HMS Serapis
- - Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Collage criteria : (1) a single static image, whether a one file, or a montage to load faster and less article churn from editors swapping out the images; (2) include an easily recognizable George Washington either in the single image, or featured in the montage; (3) a montage must not use images found elsewhere in the article, deprecated at wp:image mos, certainly not five-of-five in the prior montage at the article Infobox; (4) a montage must be made up of cropped images to avoid small, indistinguishable scenes. Considerations-ideally-balanced in the montage: (5) image-graphically, both (a) ‘readable' images, and (b) 'battle action scenes'. (6) historio-graphically, both (a) ‘great man’ George Washington, and (b) ‘bottom-up’ Continental infantry. Bonus: both partner-colleague editors on this page have a deep and long standing interest in naval warfare.
- ”Military actions” selection: (i) Yorktown Redoubt view of flags center, evening attack - sunset of the First British Empire - including cannon, Continental bayonet charge available as an offensive tactic only after Valley Forge; (ii) Washington rallying Lee's broken line at Monmouth, personal leadership under fire by example, but also men of different units thrown together could make a formation and march in step into battle for musket volleys after von Steuben gave all regiments uniform drill, a standard length of step and pace; (iii) Capture of the HMS Serapis, French-gifted Bonhomme Richard, John Paul Jones commanding, had drilled, proficient gunners, and Jones risked Marine flint-lock sharpshooters in the tarred rigging perhaps setting fire to the sails on the chance to clear the officers and gunners off the top deck of the British frigate. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Image alignment left and right for the article as a whole composition
I've surveyed the article images in the conflict-related sections from Infobox and Introduction section down to Participant combatants, and copy edited them to justify left or right.
Generally the pattern is laid out as alternating left and right. The exceptions are when two adjacent images in related text are conceptually complementary.
In each case, these images are stacked as two related-complementary images; then the following image resumes the article pattern alternating left and right, whether it is inside the same section, or along into the next one. I hope this adds to the organizational structure of the article in a way to make it easier for the reader to to pick up the information.
This is especially important in my view, where the two images need to be closely visually compared for the reader to properly relate the two items, it makes the images more closely support the adjacent-related text. -- This is especially so at the MAPS that are adjacent and complementary; they would be otherwise very difficult to compare in the mind's eye, glancing back and forth across the page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, some images work well next to one another. This is esp true with the maps in this section Re: the lede image, a single image works best compared to the former composite image. It would seem, however, that a single image featuring Washington, the commanding General, in battle would work better than the one featuring Lafayette for purposes of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I may have misspoken there. I believe that is Alexander Hamilton to be identified as leading 'in the trenches'. Lafayette may have only overseen that sector of the line? or was the back-and-forth over the Colonel to personally lead in the bayonet charge had Lafayette involved only as Washington's staff officer making the initial assignment? I do know Washington personally determined it was indeed to be Hamilton.
- - To your point, I think I remember a 'combat action' scene of Washington on horseback personally rallying soldiers and small groups back into the fray at [Monmouth?]. But I like the 'Assault on Redoubt No. 10' because of it is a symbolic combat-climax scene for the entire war, and a decisive one at that (along with the simultaneous capture of No. 9 by Rochambeau's French, at the same time, at the same place (like the structure of an ancient Greek tragedy, unity of time, place and action, whoa, where did that come from?).
- - Can someone make a two-image composite of No.10 above No.9 in a 'landscape' array, so no image presently used in the body of the article is duplicated at the Infobox per wp:image policy? I fear the social-history 'bottom-up' historians have persuaded me since the college days of mid-last-century. I would be reluctant to feature a diptych of Washington-crossing-the-Delaware-&-Washington-at-Monmouth, the "indispensable man" as hagiographic. Though I like the 'crossing the Rubicon' commitment amidst short-term failure daring-do, contrasted against the post-Valley-Forge army proficiency in the bayonet, both defense (Monmouth) and attack (Yorktown).
- - I may give a try at assembling a couple 'combat scenes' into one-or-two two-landscape-montage samples for deliberation here . . . I think I stumbled onto a how-to wp:tutorial somewhere in my online travels. In any event, thanks for your encouragement and support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Cites at article section 'Women'
FOUR (4) citations in the article section Women go to History.org. A browser search takes you to colonialwilliamsburg.org. I have noodled around a bit, but cannot find the “Historical essay”, at Colonial Williamsburg website, nor any returns on various CW searches on various sub-pages for ‘women’s service’, ‘service in the Revolutionary Army’, or ‘women’s service in the Revolutionary Army’, Women’s History Month, their monthly magazine has recently been archived? with the "current issue" at colonialwilliamsburg.org, but clicking on that link just takes me to the site mainpage …
Any assistance would be appreciated. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done — A search for Anna Maria Lane at that site did the trick. Upgraded url, added author's name and fixed redundant citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Lost Infobox section
Of some general interest, Infobox "Casualties and losses":
- Infobox American casualties SHOW here, Revision as of 20:56, 5 October 2020 - TheVirginiaHistorian (footnote code alignment; remove redundant footnotes; move orphaned ref to 'Further reading' - Cate 2006)
- Infobox American casualties MASKED here, Revision as of 21:53, 5 October 2020 - TheVirginiaHistorian (footnote code alignment)
INFOBOX CHANGEs, Line78:
- - FROM – “17,000 disease dead<ref name="Burrows">[[#burrows2008|Burrows, 2008]], "Patriots or Terrorists"</ref>
- TO – 17,000 disease dead<ref>[[#burrows2008a|Burrows, 2008]], "Patriots or Terrorists"</ref>
- - FROM – 2,112 in North America<ref>[[#dawson|Dawson 2017]], "Frenchmen who died"</ref>}}; 19 ships-of-the-line & 32 frigates (global)<ref name=Clodfelter/>
- TO – 2,112 dead total<ref>[[#dawson|Dawson 2017]], "Frenchmen who died"</ref>}}{{efn|7,000 dead total world wide<ref>[[#dawson|Dawson 2017]], "Frenchmen who died"</ref>}}
- - FROM – 2,112 in North America<ref>[[#dawson|Dawson 2017]]</ref>}}; 19 ships-of-the-line & 32 frigates (global)<ref name=Clodfelter/>
- TO – 2,112 in North America<ref>[[#dawson|Dawson 2017]], "Frenchmen who died"</ref>}}; 19 ships-of-the-line & 32 frigates (global)<ref name=Clodfelter/>
- Any coding assistance to restore the article Infobox data would be appreciated on my part. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)- Solved by IslandHopper973. Many thanks. I inadvertently cut closing parameter }} when I edited two footnotes in the Infobox. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Have placed the citation for that footnote 'within' the footnote bracket. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Solved by IslandHopper973. Many thanks. I inadvertently cut closing parameter }} when I edited two footnotes in the Infobox. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Belligerents
I made the mistake of putting this page on my Watchlist for historical reasons (which I will now remove); there's a very simple solution that would save large amounts of energy but has already been roundly rejected, so I'm sure it will be ignored. Wikipedia defines Belligerents very specifically, and asks editors not to add categories, presumably to avoid these discussions; since neither 'Auxiliaries' or 'Mercenaries' are 'Belligerents', they shouldn't be in the Infobox at all. They can be included as 'Combatants' in the Infobox provided for individual battles, which is the 'correct' place to have this argument - not here. I'll leave you to it :). Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Robinvp11: Thanks for chiming in anyway. Yes, belligerents involve countries who have declared war on one another. Neither America or Germany declared war on each other. Hessian involvement occurred only by a business arrangement between Britain and Hesse. There was no political or ideological incentive involved on behalf of the Hessians. i.e.Soldiers for hire, by a mercenary state. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom didn't declare war on America, neither did the Indians, by your logic one entire side of the infobox would be left empty.XavierGreen (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Robinvp11: Thanks for chiming in anyway. Yes, belligerents involve countries who have declared war on one another. Neither America or Germany declared war on each other. Hessian involvement occurred only by a business arrangement between Britain and Hesse. There was no political or ideological incentive involved on behalf of the Hessians. i.e.Soldiers for hire, by a mercenary state. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- RE @Robinvp11: For comparison in this article, rather than your paradigm War of Austrian Succession, please see Spanish Civil War, with Republicans and Nationalsts as you propose here, but also “Supported by” without contributed miliary units, and “Foreign volunteers”, without independent commands.
- In a revolt or civil war, the thumbnail Infobox presents participants of wp:significance in the conflict, in this ARW case, State militias, Hessian regiments and Indian tribes had independent commands in the field actively engaged in combat.
- ARW INFOBOX EXCEEDS the bar for Infobox inclusion at the Spanish Civil War, where it notes those tangential participants with no organized units at all committed in the field, never mind any independent commands under separate national flags, among the listed Germans, Italians, Portuguese; Soviets, Mexicans, French; or the Pope.
- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sizes of sections
- Okay, I've trimmed some prose and have placed several statements in footnotes, keeping all the significant details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Friendly reminder. There are dedicated articles for almost every topic that is well covered in this article. Since this is a major topic and high-traffic article, however, we still lend comprehensive coverage to the given topics, which is a criteria of a FA, and is what we should always be aiming for while we're climbing the ladder from a B-Class and GA-Class article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- We are agreed. Thanks. I had thought to continue your earlier narrative edit example to limiting references to one at each footnote, which I have applied generally as an editorial policy throughout the article, orphaning over 45 references from any article footnote, and so expanding article 'Further reading' from the previous eight (8) count. -- I do not want to lose the research information for reader 'Further reading'. If I do the same at 'Germans' for the two oldest of three references at one footnoted phrase, I hope you do not think I am "sniping" at your contribution. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. I like to think I can distinguish honest criticism from that which is not. In any case, when it comes to general statements, well established facts, I'll add no more than two cites. When it comes to challenged, unusual or otherwise controversial items it's best to add at least three, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- We are agreed. Thanks. I had thought to continue your earlier narrative edit example to limiting references to one at each footnote, which I have applied generally as an editorial policy throughout the article, orphaning over 45 references from any article footnote, and so expanding article 'Further reading' from the previous eight (8) count. -- I do not want to lose the research information for reader 'Further reading'. If I do the same at 'Germans' for the two oldest of three references at one footnoted phrase, I hope you do not think I am "sniping" at your contribution. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
ARW trim project
- At Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests following the third request for B-class assessment, Hog Farm replied with several useful suggestions about trimming this wp:TOOBIG article on the way to B-class status at that project. Hog Farm has numerous A-class military history articles to his credit; I am beginning to follow through on his suggestions there, and I will post my actions here as I follow-through on them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
- FIRST, (a) I have trimmed American logistics and British logistics from here, moving them to Talk:Continental Army here (-7,916), and Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War here (-4,976), including their HarvRef footnotes and references to assist in folding in the narrative into their respective article main-space. Interested editors are invited to collegially join them in that effort.
- (b) I have added each of the references orphaned in the move to this article Further reading.
- - from ‘American logistics’: * Baack, Ben. "The Economics of the American Revolutionary War". EH.net. Economic History Association. Retrieved July 27, 2020.; * Jensen, Merrill (2004). The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution 1763–1776. Hackett Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87220-705-9..
- - from ‘Britsh logistics’: * British Army (1916) [7 August 1781]. Proceedings of a Board of general officers of the British army at New York, 1781. New York Historical Society.
The board of inquiry was convened by Sir Henry Clinton into Army accounts and expenditures
; * Burgoyne, John (1780). A state of the expedition from Canada : as laid before the House of commons. London : Printed for J. Almon.; * Duncan, Francis (1879). History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. London: John Murray.; * Hagist, Don N. (Winter 2011). "Unpublished Writings of Roger Lamb, Soldier of the American War of Independence". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. 89 (360). Society for Army Historical Research: 280–290. JSTOR 44232931.; * Fortescue, John (1902). A history of the British army. Vol. 3.; * Lloyd, Earnest Marsh (1908). A review of the history of infantry. New York: Longmans, Green, and co.; * National Institute of Health "Scurvy". National Institute of Health. 14 November 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2020.Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center
; * "Battle of Monmouth Courthouse". Robinson Library. Self-published. Retrieved June 20, 2017. ; * Royal Navy Museum "Ships Biscuits – Royal Navy hardtack". Royal Navy Museum. Archived from the original on October 31, 2009. Retrieved January 14, 2010.; * Sawyer, C.W. (1910). Firearms in American History. Boston: C.W. Sawyer.online at Hathi Trust
; * Smith, Merril D. (2015). The World of the American Revolution: A Daily Life Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 374. ISBN 978-1-4408-3028-0. - - - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that was sort of an abrupt major change. Rather than remove both sections wholesale we should at least keep some of the basic and opening statements and put them in a section called Logistics, with a brief paragraph for both the British and the Americans, as logistics is an idea that is sort of hand-in-glove to the idea of most any war. Best not to remove it entirely.
Speaking to all in a general tone: Let's remember that there is a guideline that states --"Content, especially summary, well sourced and non-tangential information, should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length" Bear in mind also that at the top of every guideline page it says that guidelines are to be employed with "common sense" and that exceptions to guidelines can exist. When it comes to determining the length of an article we should consider the article's scope. In this case the scope of this article is exceptional in terms of events, battles, major commanders, aftermath, etc, and easily warrants a longer than average article. Having said that, I've no strong objections for removing some content, just as long as we retain the basic details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that was sort of an abrupt major change. Rather than remove both sections wholesale we should at least keep some of the basic and opening statements and put them in a section called Logistics, with a brief paragraph for both the British and the Americans, as logistics is an idea that is sort of hand-in-glove to the idea of most any war. Best not to remove it entirely.
- @Gwillhickers: To your point, I've taken great pains to maintain both sections in toto at the respective article target talk-pages. Please feel free to copy paste sections along with their bibliography references onto your Sandbox, rework the narrative, and restore a solid paragraph for each topic in a place you deem best suited for them. No harm is done by having a book cited both in the 'Bibliography' and in the 'Further reading' sections for a couple hours. I'll take on the chore of removing the redundant 'Further reading' references related to your restored paragraphs. Thanks for all you do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
October 18-day plan
- Think of the next two weeks as an experiment in the now eight (8) month-long project by page-editors to advance this article. The ARW can always bloat again later, and the Project can then always withdraw its B-class status. But I would personally like to see what happens if we “tighten up” the focus of the ARW. That two weeks will be only 5% of this years’ effort so far to advance the ARW article status, as a personal favor with respect to my 20-year hobby at Wikipedia, I’d just like to see what happens.
- OCTOBER 2020 ARW TRIM PROJECT: Tighten article focus, restricting it to (1) “strategy” as military operations to achieve political objectives, and (2) “grand-strategy”, narrative describing significant military operations in a theater of war. Otherwise, equipages and logistics, enactments, dispatches and diplomacy -- not so much, just for a short while, just to see the outcome at Military history project by the end of October.
- - Copyedits to date have consolidated the “main thing” of the ARW article into four (4) sections:
- - Introduction & Infobox
- - War in America;
- - Revolution as civil war; and
- - Aftermath, allowing for easy trim.
- After a brief exchange, Hog Farm and I determined that the ‘American logistics’, ‘British logistics’, and ‘Background’ sections were the lowest-hanging-fruit to remove: they are the furthest removed from ARW military strategy and grand strategy, and can be readily linked in the appropriate ARW space to their respective army articles, "Continental Army" and "British Army during the American Revolutionary War". As the principal writer-contributor of the ‘American logistics’ section (a parallel for belligerents balance), I agreed to give the trim a try.
- - The two logistics sections, netting a reduction of 12.9 kB in the article RESULT: 107 kB (17080 words). In other words, assuming 15% of the removed kB is made up of footnotes and references, we are ALREADY 60% of the way to the GOAL: 100kB prose size (text only).
- - TIME REMAINING: just 17 days to RE-BLOAT the article. Please bear with me for just a couple of weeks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Missing from Lede
I was very surprised to see that the outbreak of the war at Lexington and Concord is not mentioned in the lede. The appointment of Washington to command the Continental Army just comes out of nowhere. The second paragraph could use an opening sentence like the following,
Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775, when British forces sent to capture a weapons stockpile outside Boston were confronted by local militia at Lexington and Concord.
A second comment on the lede: the sentence, The new 1765 Stamp Act provoked an unrest that led to the 1773 Boston Tea Party
is a bit too concise. We should mention the Townshend Acts and the Boston Massacre. I would propose,
The new 1765 Stamp Act and 1767-1768 Townshend Acts provoked colonial opposition and unrest, leading to the 1770 Boston Massacre and 1773 Boston Tea Party.
This is still very concise, but it makes it clear that there was no direct line from the Stamp Act to the Boston Tea Party. After all, the Stamp Act was repealed, leading to a short lull in the crisis. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done — Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)