Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

"Who actually counts?"

"Who actually counts?" here was the post for removing firstly, the two Canadian “Regiments of Congress” from the Infobox US “Combatants”,

- and secondly, Francophone militia in Virginia north of the Ohio River organized and led by a French national under the French national flag during the ARW. The second element will be addressed in a second Talk section.

It was altered without discussion here at ARW:Talk. This effort follows the previous anonymous attempt to place the [Province of Quebec (1763–1791)]] in the Infobox as a British combatant.

- Following the Declaration, British subject Canadians were invited to join the American “Cause”. Those responding to enlist were mostly Canadiens of the St. Lawrence River Valley, and Acadians descendant remnants from their British Imperial expulsion along with Anglophones descendant of New England settlers in the The Maritimes.

The “Quebec-as-Empire-ally” Infobox entry was duly removed and replaced with a reliably sourced flag for those two regiments of British subjects who "voted with their feet" to join the American "Cause" after their representatives in colonial assemblies were outvoted in session. The US claimed the territory of thirteen British colonies west to the Mississippi River.

- That claim was later ceded by the Anglo-American Treaty 1783 Treaty of Paris signed in Paris before the Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish treaties. After the war many of the Canadian Regiment veterans resettled in the US as citizens, a few on land grants in frontier New York state.

The ARW Infobox listing the organized units of foreign nationals in their civil war with the British Empire followed Wikipedia article precedent found at the Spanish Civil War that includes Spanish Combatants naming the International Brigades, including an article section that notes smaller units such as the American Lincoln Battalion, later the Lincoln Brigade. The ARW was fought on a smaller scale of manpower in the field, it will allow for smaller numbers to be noted in the Infobox.

Were the "Who actually counts?" editor criterion be applied uniformly in the ARW Infobox, several changes would result that the consensus here will find objectionable on several grounds.

- Canadian “Regiments of Congress” qualify if the line items for Native American “Indians” combatants remain. They should not be de-classified as "Combatants" for British or Americans by editor "no-account" in the Infobox.

It is true that their part-time service was in limited numbers or for limited and intermittent times in on-again off-again arrangements with the opposing governments, and for very narrow selective purposes. They (a) conducted independent war-party raids by a dozen or so for a week or so, (b) they ran alongside British and American formations in numbers for a week or so prior and ending after an attack, or ending just before it, or (c) they served as scouts who over-wintered in bands of 6-12 or so from each tribe so committed. But neither Indians nor Canadian “Regiments of Congress” should be removed as combatants.

- Canadian Regiments qualify if the line items for five of the seven German Treaty auxiliaries remain. They should not be de-classified as "belligerents" for the British by editor "no-account" in the Infobox. It is true that for five of the seven German “Treaty Auxiliaries”, numbers serving in the field for Empire did not reach those of the combined numbers of Canadian “Regiments of Congress” in the field for the American Cause. But neither Treaty German principalities contributing fewer soldiers in the field, nor Canadian “Regiments of Congress” should be removed as belligerents.

- Without objection, in a day or two, I’ll restore the Canadian "Regiments of Congress" as belligerents, and defend the Spanish Civil War International Brigades as Infobox-belligerents for the “Cause” of the 1931 Spanish Republicans as needed at the Spanish Civil War article. s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

"US was not a signatory" edit war

Danbloch has initiated an wp:edit war over a note in the Note here. The note explains the end of the American Revolutionary War, with an Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris signed in Paris. The US did not sign the separate two Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish Treaties of Paris signed at Versailles, though the US diplomats were in attendance.

Danbloch has inadvertently asserted a factual error-by-omission in a kind of retrograde Euro-imperial defense of a factual error promulgated in Wikipedia history pages among sister articles related to Britain around its wars and their conclusions in the 1780s.

(a) The error asserts that the American Revolutionary War did not end until the cessation of British hostilities against the Spanish after the Great Siege of Gibraltar in 1783, and against the French after the Second Anglo-Mysore War in 1784.

(b) The error depends on editors misreading and misquoting reliable Euro scholarship, applying misinterpretations from editors published in sources without scholarly peer review. For example, monographs published at the Oxford Press located in the township of Oxford, England, is NOT the Oxford University Press, UK.

(1) The article consensus reads, "Formally, the duration was from the Declaration of Independence by Congress addressed to Great Britain, to the September 1783 British-American Treaty of Paris to end the American Revolutionary War. Though signed on 2 September, it did not take effect until the day after "at the pleasure" of King George, at the signing of the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles in the palace of Louis XVI; the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles followed the French. Congress was not a signatory to either of these last two."

(2) Danbloch deleted here, Congress was not a signatory to either of these last two. with the explanation, remove an unnecessary and fairly obvious detail.

(3) TVH restored the Note with an expanded explanation here, "The US was not a signatory to either of these last two ending the British-Bourbon wars in Europe, Africa or the Indian subcontinent.", explaining that it is an important Note clarification added for general reader with a Euro-Empire educational background, see ARW Talk for the last 20 months.

(4) Danbloch deleted here, The US was not a signatory to either of these last two ending the British-Bourbon wars in Europe, Africa or the Indian subcontinent. explaining, this article is about the American Revolution, not the British-Bourbon wars, which aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. To belong in Wikipedia this fact would need to be explained with enough context to be understood by the general reader.

I propose that Danbloch end his edit war by agreeing to the following language here at ARW:TALK, "The US was not a signatory to either of these two treaties ending British wars with the French and the Spanish in Europe, Africa, or the Indian subcontinent carried on at the same time as it waged the American Revolutionary War over US independence.” Without objection, I’ll amend the omission from the previous consensus here with this wording to incorporate contributions by Danbloch in his edit space explanations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

First, I find myself in the unexpected position of having to point out to an experienced editor that this is not an edit war. TheVirginiaHistorian made a change, I reverted it, and now we're discussing it. This is exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. The earlier text that I reverted (once, with no objection) was not obviously related. TVH did not restore that text, he introduced new text.

That aside, the issue, basically, is that long footnotes are bad. In this specific case, the text doesn't belong in the footnote because:

(1) It's unrelated to the topic of the footnote, which is specifically the start and end dates of the Revolutionary War.

(2) The fact that the US was not a signatory to treaties between non-US countries is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't need to be stated.

(3) The ending of the British-French and British-Spanish wars is certainly important to history, but discussion of them should go in the body of the article. Burying them without explanation in a footnote doesn't benefit anyone. [Updated: Just to be clear, the text in question doesn't belong in the lead paragraph outside of a footnote either.]

The concern about implied factual error can be fixed by removing the text "at the signing of the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles in the palace of Louis XVI; the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles followed the French," which would also improve the article by making the footnote shorter and more focused. This is my proposal. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered reply.

(1) The explanation you first demanded is already in the Note, the Treaty of Paris (1783) was made up of three (3) British-made treaties, so further elaboration need not be supplied, you only need to read the last sentence in the context of its paragraph sentences immediately adjacent prior in the Note.

(2) Now you insist that the explanation you once demanded to be added, that is already there, now be excised from where it is now written.

- The note relates to the beginning and end of the ARW in that there was different, additional war contemporaneously waged by Britain for another purpose at the American Revolutionary War over US independence.

- The note is necessary for the general international reader, especially for the British-Isles-centric who are native English readers, because the two wars are frequently confused due to the overlapping time and common enemies of Britain. But the two wars against the same old enemies and their independent support for the American rebels are not the same war, because they have different causes at different times, different aims and purposes, and different settlements on paper and on the ground.

(3) That overlapping 1779-1783 war with the two Bourbon (cousin) monarchs of France and Spain related to their alliance made previously for half a century to support one another's Euro-regimes and global empires against Britain et alia. It did NOT related to the ARW to achieve US independence.

- The confusion arises for the British-centric because (a) the British fought the French in North America, then against North American colonists there with French support (after 1777 Saratoga, though at 1779 declaring war on Britain with Spain WITHOUT Spain joining for US independence, FRANCE broke its 1778 Franco-American Treaty), and (b) the British fought the Spanish in the Caribbean throughout the 1700s, then against Britain to try to prevent their war supplies going to southeast tribes attacking southern US states during the ARW. (Also to add to the complexity, Luisiana Governor Galvez was in the Spanish Court Enlightenment (minority) faction; he took personal initiatives with material aid to Washington via Pittsburg (Mississippi River to Ohio River), and to John Rogers Clark along with some Francophone militia and Spanish munitions from west of the Mississippi (Spanish Luisiana) to clear the British from western Quebec north of the Ohio River in that British Empire territory).

(4) To shorten the Note as a matter of WP:STYLE, and regardless of the merits of the factoid-information under discussion, let's spend a little more thought in this exchange. Your proposal to discuss Britain's contemporaneous wars, one over US independence, the other that takes place as a war with the Bourbon Kings in Europe, the Caribbean, Africa, and India for empire, would go in what section, just as a first stab at it? Agreed, not in the Introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Brevity for the sake of style wasn't my only motivation--by removing text I was also addressing another issue, which is that there was insufficient context for a non-knowledgeable reader (which is most of our readers) to understand the footnote. Now that I perhaps understand your reasoning a little better, I propose the following content: "Formally, the duration was from the Declaration of Independence by Congress addressed to Great Britain, to the September 1783 British-American Treaty of Paris to end the American Revolutionary War. Though signed on 2 September, it did not take effect until the day after "at the pleasure" of King George, at the signing of the Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish Treaties of Versailles, thus ending hostilities between the four belligerents. This is relatively short, but also adds enough content for a non-expert to know why the Treaties of Versailles are being mentioned here.

After looking through the article, I'm afraid that adding this information elsewhere, while it would still be beneficial, would take quite a bit of work. The French and Spanish efforts in the war are embedded throughout the article, and the Treaties of Versaille aren't mentioned specifically at all. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed content 3 Sep 4:19pm looks good to me. Here's a tweek without advancing any real advocacy for it on my part . . .

Maybe an additional cut at the end of "...to end the American Revolutionary War. It took effect the day after "at the pleasure" of King George to coincide with his treaty with the French and another with the Spanish. The three treaties taken together ended that contemporaneous round of hostilities among the four belligerents separately but simultaneously. Better popular press for the Crown back home in England, and after a bit of bother with Lord North again, he got William Pitt (the younger) - a definite WIN for the KING.

I think the article already makes reference to the British and Spanish who almost immediately restricted the "open" port of New Orleans to American trade, and both turned to supplying armaments to Native tribes making war on US citizens on the territory the British had ceded to it both in the Old Northwest and the Old Southwest ... for one to slow settlement progress towards the Spanish North American Empire, and for the other to maintain an independent (lucrative) British-subject fur trade north to Canada by excluding the Americans from their Indian Treaty trading rights for harvested furs to be sold east to New York and Philadelphia.

The French for their part were considerably ticked at being finessed out of exclusive access to Newfoundland fishing as sort of the 'most favored nation'. War or no war, Vergennes thought he had a lock on it diplomatically. For the Brits making the American peace, the long term diplomatic objective was to make the farming and fishing US a "granary" to supply the British Army on the Continent whenever the Rhine River Valley wheat distribution was interrupted by any future (anticipated) war with the French. And, imagine Jeffersons personal delight at getting the Louisiana Purchase from the "Corsican Corporal" from 'over the pond' as a sort of royal payback for both the Bourbon families, French and Spanish. Ah, yes, some of the obstructionist New Englander Federalists and the squeeky-voiced John Randolph of Roanoke quibbled with the Quids. It was worth spending the political capital, imho. See Meacham's Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. Also, please note the unrelenting wikipedia bias weighted towards New England scholarship that is willy-nilly sectional during this New Republic Era, regardless of Congressional majorities, issue by issue throughout. (No personal offense intended here, some of my best friends are Bostonians and Harvard has many of my heroes David C. McClelland, Samuel Elliott Morrison, Robert Coles, Bernard Bailyn, to name a few, there are many more).

Next week, I'd like to return to reassess the British-American (or Brit: Anglo-American) Treaty here at ARW. There was a HUGE diplomatic section(s) now transferred wholesale to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War in a effort that cut the text by almost half. Some additional editorial work might be done to reconcile the narrative balance-of-sources found there with that found at Treaty of Versailles (1783). But I've had my ears boxed enough on the subject that at this point, I'd rather let Wikipedia:Other stuff lie dormant in the dog days of August. Oh, wait, it's September, already.

Happy Labor Day. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I still strongly believe in the value of brevity, really everywhere but especially in footnotes, so I've stuck with my wording. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

About that opening footnote

I just took a closer look at this footnote, and there's another concern besides the wording. The lead sentence begins, "The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783)". The immediately following footnote begins, "Formally, the duration of the war was from the Declaration of Independence by Congress until ...". That is, the text says April 19, 1775 and the footnote says July 4, 1776. I have no opinion on this. All I wanted was for the lead paragraph to look good. But I wanted to bring it to your attention. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Introduction housekeeping "Notes"

Trying to limit the metastasizing Introduction with additional POV commentary about Euro imperial wars over Euro monarchs and princely successions and marriages and their various related bastards with sundry conflicting claims to one throne or another, HERE, I hope I reduced the recently UNDISCUSSED expansion that is not germane to the North American continent into article narrative Notes.

As I explained at the edit, for the still overly-long Introduction - I deployed "Notes" without removing any sources to reduce text key strokes assaulting the general reader that was otherwise interrupting the WP:style purpose for an article introduction.

That is to say, the superfluous Euro-royalty-related data about European mainland conflicts mostly confined within Europe itself, offshore there and the Mediterranean Sea - - although it is intrinsically interesting and crucial to understanding Euro-monarchies and their principalities, heraldry and family trees. In the course of those mighty battles and far-flung Euro-centered wars, in British North America, between the North American continent and the Caribbean, there was no substantial interruption in the commerce of British colonial trade with other Euros and their colonies, throughout the wars of the "Mother Country" to weigh in on the successions over there in Europe, however expensive it turned out to be for the London speculators and their Lordships underwriting King George in his flights of princely Hanoverian diplomacy off the English soldiery, through decades-long wars on land and sea, funded and fought by British subjects for purposes of a wanna-be big-time Germanic princeling influencer. Que lastima, What a pity, in the course of human history. I know what might-could be tried out, way back then, maybe make a continental republic all our own, with "No taxation without representation", like it says in our Magna Carta from the English bad-King John to the good-English Parliament of de facto concrete representation. Well, except for the theocratic Pretender-Protector who would throttle-hang folks to death for dancing with their own wives the previous century, or lately since the 1750s, the not-so-good Parliament of double-dipping Members with incomes taken from the national Treasury via multiple King-granted offices to each favorite, and the "rotten borough" Members elected by a baker's dozen of voters outvoting thousands in the port cities, and the imperial British tax money perverted to the "King's Men" to influence them vote-by-vote.

The new and undiscussed material in the article Introduction is now reduced into appropriate Euro-war "Notes" removing the previous edit giving the material an undeserved prominent placement in the Introduction - - without sourcing or discussion elsewhere in the ARW article that might confirm the editor's Euro-centered POV. Today's edit by TVH should stand until something persuasive can be shown here by others, and their RfC is worded that might develop a consensus to pivot the ARW here as a Euro-centered war. I for one, am not yet persuaded to it.

The invitation still stands for any concerned Editor to come here to Talk to discuss any Euro-focused changes before their second revert of the consensus Introduction which is here dedicated to the Wikipedia article concerning the American Revolutionary War in North America for US independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I still think that this was a de facto world war, and the North American front was a mere backwater. More focus should be placed on British and French activities than the rebels. Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, "The British had a world war with Spanish and French adversaries for their three-way Euro empire split of world overseas colonial spoils." That so much is true, as far as it goes. There was indeed an ANGLO-BOURBON WAR 1779-1783 as Alfred Mahan describes it that was, as you say, "a de facto world war, and the North American front was a mere backwater". And for THAT article's topic on Mahan's Anglo-Bourbon War, "more focus should be placed on British and French activities [overseas from North America] than the rebels [in North America]]." . . . or for that matter that A-B War article would not much concern itself with any of the territory ceded by the British to the US in North America, because for THAT Anglo-Bourbon War, North America was not critical, it was superfluous to Euro imperial world war colonial interests, "the North American front was a mere backwater", precisely as you say, for the Euro A-B War, but NOT for the Anglo-American, American Revolutionary War for independence on territory ceded in North America by the British alone. In the American Revolutionary War, North American territory was the critical, necessary, sufficient and central 'front' to secure rebel success for establishing the United States as an independent nation-state.

But the Euro A-B War was NOT about recolonizing the US by Britain or by colonizing the US by France or Spain. So the editor consensus here at ARW is that it shall be an article primarily about the rebels and those who fought the British in North America in your "backwater of international Euro imperial contests" over the issue of American independence by the Continental Congress from Britain, with territory in North America wrestled from the British Empire, in the North American "backwater".

The ARW was NOT about which Euro imperial power got "first right of refusal" at the peace negotiating table over the islands of Mallorca or Corsica in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, or even the Fortress of Gibraltar overseas from North America. NONE of those three were mentioned in any Continental Army correspondence as a likely bulwark against warring Iroquois tribes along the Great Lakes or Ohio River, as I recall.

Greater emphasis on the French or British possession of a trading island at the mouth of the Gambia River is of course of central importance to the history of the British and French imperial contest to colonize and rule Africa for themselves. The British still colonize Gibraltar, now owned by the Spanish this century according to international law courts.

I do not object to telling that story elsewhere, or more of the story of European monarchy and princeling lines of ruling succession by family trees, poisonings, assassinations and multi-national world wars over Euro empires, nation states and principalities or their attached and aspired-to colonies in Africa, Asia, or even in the Caribbean for that matter. But that conflict is just NOT germane to an article on the American Revolutionary War for independence from Britain, in a national territory ceded by Britain to the US in North America, then concluded to end hostilities among the British in North America at the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris signed by the US and UK in Paris and by no other, -- regarding US independence from Britain or the territory ceded by Britain to the US in North America west to the Mississippi River, WITH NO MENTION WHATEVER of the key warfronts surrounding Gibraltar, Corsica, Mallorca, or the Gambia River either in the Anglo-American treaty text or in side protocols anywhere between the British and the US Continental Congress, officially or unofficially. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.

/s TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit says "began to object to taxes levied on the North American colonists but not on English lords." This is unclear. Are these peers of the realm or people known as lords? Why would English peers be treated any differently from Scottish and Irish peers of Great Britain? What was the law that gave English lords preferential tax rates? What happened if someone was both an English lord and a North American colonist? Were these colonists taxed differently if they resided in England? TFD (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why DO the English believe themselves different from anyone anywhere; "different" in Parliamet from Scots, ever? Inquiring minds want to know WHY there is still an independence movement in Scotland after centuries of "Union", even before the Brexit vote, imposed by a permanent English majority population on the others, as ever.

Some, certainly a majority in 1776 British Parliament who represented English subjects did not utter "colonial" adjectivally with the appropriate regard, deference and respect for their fellow Englishmen-subjects-by-Royal-common-law-charter-in-perpetuity in the fastest growing of any British homeland or imperial region by population, agricultural production, and accumulating wealth. They were UNLIKE those who were forefront American Patriot Cause supporters among the "Rockingham Whigs" in Parliament's minority Opposition, who saw expanding agricultural North America as the 'breadbasket' for its continental wars, at the very least, and so not to be lost by carelessness.

- Indeed, earlier, WHO in His Majesties' (pronoun: we) loyal service to the British Empire would deny George Washington a regular British Army commission after his loyal service in the French and Indian War and his sponsorship by personal intervention of English Lord Fairfax? HOW COULD HE have been viewed as "different" in his English pedigree, just as you so rightly question? "This is all unclear.", so Where are the reliable sources that purport such unreasonableness on the part of any Englishman at any time in history, indeed, where might one even think to begin a supposedly scholarly investigation on such a line of inquiry?

- And, too, HOW IS IT that on every heavy construction project that I have ever walked, there is a white-hat degreed engineer nick-named "Scottie" on the job who believes he cannot, can never, get a comparable professional responsibility nor a similar income under any job description on any English-run project in either the UK or any other Commonwealth country worldwide? "This is all unclear."

Unless The Four Deuces has found an Irish peer living in 1776 with a Wikipedia biography that places him in the British 1776 Parliament House of Lords, I'll pass on any trolling hooks regarding Imperial British taxes on 18th century Irish estates to be found in North America. [Hint: THERE WERE NO such estates, and almost all English immigrants with titled family were younger sons WITHOUT taxable estates in the Mother Country or in the New World.] That's the point of the inequitable wealth-amassing primogeniture, like a modern day family trust you see, abolished in Virginia by dividing estates every generation to widows and children - natural division not confiscation].

- This is meant for serious deliberate discussion here at ARW Talk [?] it is "Non sequitur" nonsense. But please, do provide the link to the said Irish peer in the House of Lords at this thread for us all, before an uncharitable editor imagines that our delightful exchange may be construed as wp:disruption here by the two of us. -- Your collaborating comrade in all things Wikipedia Foundation, s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Irish peers did not sit in the House of Lords of Great Britain in 1776, because Ireland was and is not part of Great Britain. Instead, they sat in the Irish House of Lords. However, Wills Hill, 1st Marquess of Downshire was an Irish peer (Earl of Hillsborough) who was appointed to the British House of Lords as Baron Harwich. But you haven't answered my question. Your claim that British lords had a different tax status is false. TFD (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Text now in footnotes

It's true that the American Revolutionary War article should not be used to encompass the larger power struggle between Great Britain and France, but of equal importance, footnotes should not be used to store text just in case someone might want to use it some day. This is not what footnotes are for. It makes Wikipedia look bad.

There is a place to keep text which someone might want to use some day, and that's the talk page. To that end, I've put the contents of the footnotes in question here:

Footnote w

Representatives of British American colonists who had paid for their own frontier defense and provisioned the intermittent British military augmentation away from the port cities during previous wars with the French and their allied Indian tribes, began to object to taxes levied on the North American colonists but not on English lords. Parliament had innovated taxation policies contrary to the colonial charters to fund debt associated almost entirely to European land wars of monarchial and princely succession, not by taxes on imperial trade, but on internal taxes related exclusively to domestic colonial affairs. North American British subjects were denied representation in Parliament allowed English, Scots, and Welch, when their charters specified settlers would have all the rights of Englishmen as though they resided in England, nor was the First Continental Congress given equivalent footing as the Irish Parliament. Hence the universal slogan among the rebels of the American Revolution, "No taxation without representation" as guaranteed in the 1215 English Magna Carta.

Footnote x

At the cessation of Anglo-French hostilities in North America concluded by the Anglo-French 1763 Treaty of Paris, British subjects there who had carried the fight for British North America against both the French and their native allies in the French and Indian War developed a new-found sense of self-reliance for their own defense against any immediate European threat to their security. Most of the successful fighting on the frontier was colonial-led and fought, whilst the British military failed to secure the frontier or clear the French-ally Indian settlements as long as the French persisted there. The European contest for North American on the British side was funded primarily by millions raised exclusively in the North American colonies, especially in Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Those funds were never repaid by taxes on the British subjects in England or elsewhere, but the Americans were asked to underwrite English expenses for the European land war. The cost of British Imperial victory in the 1756 to 1763 Seven Years' War left the British government deeply in debt and the British House of Lords was reluctant to finance the diplomatic aspirations of King George as a Hanover Prince in the Holy Roman Empire. They looked to the most prosperous and growing part of their empire. Parliament had committed most of the British Treasury and its indebtedness in a series of indecisive imperial contests on the European continent related to the royal successions among various princes, kings and emperors there.

References

Unless there's a consensus against it, I'll delete the footnotes from the article. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The earlier objectionable edit is effectively withdrawn at this time. It was imposed without discussion here; it did require some detailed context to counter the firehose of falsehoods incorporated in the offensive POV assumptions, stated and unstated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is done. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Territorial changes in infobox – confusing to layreader

The infobox can be reasonably read to imply that Britain ceded the entirety of the Thirteen Colonies to Spain, as opposed to just the Floridas. Is it possible to rewrite this so it matches what actually happened (i.e. 13C to the US, Florida to Spain)? Sceptre (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Royal Regiment of Artillery

How did the cannons look like 49.126.90.97 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Burning of Norfolk

This article should be edited when referring to Lord Dunmore’s part in the burning of Norfolk. Another Wikipedia article states, “ Damage to the town by the Whig forces significantly exceeded that done by the British, destroying 863 buildings valued at £120,000 (an estimated £16.5 million[17] in modern pound sterling). In comparison, the British bombardment destroyed only 19 properties worth £3,000 (£410,000); this was in addition to £2,000 (£280,000) in damages done by Lord Dunmore during the British occupation of Norfolk.[16]”. This shows that the implication in this article that Dunmore and the British forces were not the major cause of the burning of the city of Norfolk, Virginia. 100.14.141.78 (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

3rd paragraph in lede: "...and guaranteed by the English, then the British Parliament."

Please remove the everything in between the words "English" and "Parliament", so that it reads "...guaranteed by the English Parliament." While Scotland and England did have the same king at that time, they were separate kingdoms and each had their own governments and their own parliaments. There was no "British Parliament" that existed until ~20 years after the American Revolution ended.

I know it's somewhat minor, but it's still wrong..thank you! :) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:39AF:8AB2:A850:B03D (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The Parliament of Great Britain was active from 1707 to 1801. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I had another question. What does it mean for Parliament to gurantee a charter? Maybe we should just remove it. TFD (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Equine casualties

For some reason the side panel states that there were 1,200,000–1,250,000 equines dead, which is a statistic from the American civil war. This doesn't make since as that means equine deaths outnumbered human deaths more than 20:1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mts060 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted. This nonsense has been in the info-box for a couple of years, and I have now removed it. TFD (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Mysore

How was Mysore nvolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It was an ally of France. " the conflict between Britain against the French and Dutch in the American Revolutionary War sparked Anglo-Mysorean hostilities in India." Resulting in the Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–1784). Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

But that was in india not in North America Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 November 2021

But the American Revolutionary War was a global conflict with many theatres, not purely a North American conflict. After all, the Great Siege of Gibraltar was in Europe, not North America, but was still a part of the war.JMM12345 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

The North American theater was basically a backwater, as the great powers of the era and their colonial empires were duking it out across several continents. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Sayre

I just noticed Stephen Sayre, an American who lived in London during the Revolution, has a poorly referenced article. Any help from those with interest would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Revert "Sneaky George" to "George Washington" in paragraph 3. 192.149.91.6 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)