Talk:American Revolution/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Acts of Parliament, etc.

This material is removed in toto from American Revolutionary War as off-topic there, and posted here for editor use here. Notes, footnotes, and bibliographic references follow:

Stamp Act monies were expected to be relatively small, an estimated 16% of American frontier expense. But with the passage of the Stamp Act, an innovative direct tax was placed on official documents. That provoked further unrest among colonists of every description who bought land, practiced law, read newspapers, or gambled with cards or dice. The taxes had to be paid in scarce gold or silver, not in colonial legislature paper money.

Most dangerously for the Englishman's right to jury trial, the Stamp Act extended Admiralty Court jurisdiction beyond the high seas to violations in colonial ports, with the accused to stand trial in London. The accumulating discontent with Royal collections agents and Admiralty justice culminated in the 1773 Boston Tea Party. The colonial legislatures argued the Stamp Act was illegal, since only they had the representative right to impose local taxes within their jurisdictions. They also claimed that their rights as Englishmen protected them from taxes imposed by a body in which they had no actual representation. Prime Minister George Grenville's defense to the effect that the colonies had a "virtual representation" in Parliament was dismissed on both sides of the Atlantic. Although the Chatham ministry of Whig William Pitt the Elder repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 to widespread rejoicing, it simultaneously re-affirmed Parliament's right to tax the colonies in the future.

The 1767 Townshend Acts instituted new taxes on tea, lead, glass, and paper, but collection proved increasingly difficult. With the new revenue taxes came an enforcement policy from Parliament meant expressly for the American colonies and their widespread smuggling among the islands held by the Dutch, French, Spanish, and even other British colonies in the Caribbean Sea. The “Writs of Assistance” allowed British agent to arbitrarily conduct searches without warrants.

The Writs had been challenged in a ruling by James Otis Sr. in the Superior Court of Massachusetts. But on appeal to London the next year in 1762, Writs of Assistance for the colonies were upheld. For five years after the renewed 1767 enforcement, the Writs were challenged again in all thirteen colonial courts. In eight superior colonial courts they were refused. Where the colonial plaintiffs won, they were subsequently all overturned again in London.

In each state legislature, Patriots responded to the Loyalist challenge by passing Test Laws that required all residents to swear allegiance to their state. These were meant to identify neutrals or to drive opponents of independence into self-exile. Failure to take the oath meant possible imprisonment, forced exile, or even death. American Tories were barred from public office, forbidden from practicing medicine and law, or forced to pay increased taxes. Some could not execute wills or become guardians. Congress enabled states to confiscate Loyalist property to fund the war.

Notes

Citations

Bibliography

• Boatner, Mark M. (1974) [1966]. Encyclopedia of the American Revolution'. D. McKay Company. ISBN 978-0-6795-0440-5.* Bonwick, Colin (1991). The American Revolution. ISBN 9780813913476.
• Callahan, North (1967). Flight of the Tories from the Republic, The Tories of the American Revolution. Bobb-Merrill. ASIN B0006BQPQG.
• Dickinson, H. T (1977). Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-century Britain – H.T. Dickinson. ISBN 978-0-416-72930-6.
• Gladney, Henry M. (2014). No Taxation without Representation: 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance. ISBN 978-1-4990-4209-2.
• McIlwain, Charles Howard (2005) [1938]. The American Revolution: A Constitutional Interpretation. ISBN 978-1-58477-568-3.
• Morgan, Edmund S.; Morgan, Helen M. (1995) [First published 1963]. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0807845134.
• Wallenfeldt, Jeff (29 May 2015). "Writ of assistance, British-American colonial history". Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 25 August 2020. Customhouse officers were authorized to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying either the house or the goods.
• Watson, J. Steven; Clark, Sir George (1960). The Reign of George III, 1760-1815. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198217138.
• Westlager, Clinton Alfred (1976). The Stamp Act Congress. University of Delaware Press. ISBN 9780874131116.

Respectfully submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No Taxation Without Representation

If the rebels said 'No Taxation Without Representation' as is claimed, why did they never once petition for representation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.238.115 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that no Americans ever asked for that, but it seems the preference of the colonies was to go back to control of taxation through colonial governments where they already had representation. It may also have been impractical to have representation in England, given the transit time across the Atlantic was weeks or months. See No taxation without representation. -- Beland (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Spelling error, edit "justificaton" into justification, last paragraph before the contents box. "rights used as justificaton for the revolution." StillUnsure (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution. Cheers! —Sirdog9002 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

End date of the American Revolution

The Infobox dates of the American Revolution is amended to 22 March 1765 to 14 January 1784, here.

As the Note explains, The date of January 14, 1784 is when the US Congress ratified the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris after the British Parliament had. The treaty ended the American Revolution with US independence acknowledged by Britain on territory ceded from British-claimed territory in North America, as defined in Article 1 and Article 2. At ratification, "all hostilities by sea and land shall henceforth cease" between British subjects and American citizens, secured under a "firm and perpetual peace", as provided in Article 7. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus has yet to be achieved on this. Shoreranger (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to overturn the 1783 date in the first place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Section: Creating a more perfect union

The entire section, "Creating a more perfect Union" can be deleted from the article and replaced with a sentence and a link to the article History of the United States Constitution.

"Creating a more perfect Union" than the Articles of Confederation's "perpetual Union" lies outside of the American Revolution -- which was accomplished by the Continental Congress from beginning to end.

The Amendments to the Constitution are not carried out by the Continental Congress, although it is true that it (a) called the Constitutional Convention, (b) endorsed the Philadelphia proposal by transmitting the document as submitted to the states for ratification by its novel procedures, and (c) deferred to the authority of the incoming US Congress by dissolving itself at the convening of the First Congress of eleven (11) states (this by the Founders, even though the 1788 Constitution was not adopted unanimously as though it were amendments to the Articles of Confederation).

The Continental Congress that conducted the American Revolution was not extant at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It cannot be said to be the agency of something that happened after its existence terminated sine die. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Continental Congress is not the sole agent of the American Revolution as a social, political and philosophical event. Elements of the American Revolution predate and postdate both the Continental Congress and the War. Participation of or by the Continental Congress does not in itself determine is something is part of the social, political or philosophical development or conclusion of the American Revolution. Shoreranger (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

While abstract ideas may motivate, or provoke people to action, ideas do not cause history, people do.

Reification (fallacy) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (ideals in the 1791 Bill of Rights) is treated as if it were a concrete entity (1776 rebels in governance at the Declaration). --- In this case, NOTHING takes place in human history (the American Revolution 1775-1784) that is caused by an agency (people in governance) which is NOT yet in existence at the time (the US regime in 1791). --- The first ten amendments "Bill of Rights" of the 1788 Constitution takes place under a federal procedure by the voting populace who formed the basis of 1791 US government.

- As an historical event of people, the American Revolution took place under the auspices of the Continental Congress by the 1776 rebels in a 13-state collaboration that formed the basis of that first US government. THAT Congress was not in existence in 1791, so it could not be the agency of the 1791 Bill of Rights.

- It was extant in the 1776 American Revolution for Independence, an independence from Britain that was achieved in 1783, finally ratified by THAT Congress in 1784 in the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris -- And incidentally, to the misguided edit asserting otherwise, US independence in the American Revolution by the Continental Congress was not achieved at the Bill of Rights in 1791.

- The year and the US regime of 1776 was at another time and other than the 1791 US regime. It is a logical fallacy to think that 1776 ideals had concrete agency in 1791, therefore the American Revolution must encompass 1791 events, or that the American Revolution continues today in 2021 through the John Lewis Voting Rights bill, just because the Declaration ideal "all men are created equal" still motivates and provokes to action among the 2021 US regime of voting people.

- Of course the American Revolution continued in 1791 and it does today, BUT ONLY as a political STUMP SPEACH, not as history narrative on Wikipedia -- "Reification is part of normal usage of natural language, as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such", whether we are talking about the 1791 Bill of Rights or the 2021 John Lewis Voting Rights Act - as an ideal extension of "the American Revolution". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sundry undiscussed unsoursed POV

Here an editor Shoreranger made a string of unsourced POV alterations to the article narrative including his reimposed American Revolution ending date for 1791, which is unsourced and without a consensus here.

That there were twenty- or thirty-odd unjustified edits does not mean that the 1791 date can remain to replace the consensus 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris signed in Paris by representatives of the US Congress and the British Parliament "ending hostilities between British subjects and American citizens" [as I remember], and previously cited in the Infobox.

Nor does throwing up a chaff cloud of unbroken POV edit entries in the same week mean that the others which are also unsourced are not subject to review here at Talk because of their previously unchallenged proliferation. They include substantive changes without notice on this page for consensus deliberation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As stated in the preface to the article, "This article is about political and social developments, and the origin and aftermath of the war. For military actions, see American Revolutionary War." In addition, the first sentence in the lede states "The American Revolution was an ideological and political revolution...". The date of 1783 refers only to the end of the War. The culmination of the social and political Revolutionary era is commonly understood to be the enactment of the Bill of Rights. Shoreranger (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your reference to the Bill of Rights is related to the political and social developments of the "New Republic Era" of American historiography, and NOT the "American Revolution Era".

So, in reliably sourced literature, historians focused on the first era related to this article American Revolution contribute to journals like the William and Mary Quarterly, and for those scholars focused on events after the Revolutionary Era that closes at the ratification of the 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris by the Continental Congress, they contribute to the Journal of the Early Republic to discuss the political and social developments related to the Bill of Rights. Of course there is some cross pollination, especially after the groundbreaking scholarship of Pauline Maier.

Otherwise your proposal seems to be an innovative POV unsubstantiated by any reliable source to date. After the American Revolution, enactment of the Bill of Rights was NOT the conclusion of the American Revolution, it was an accommodation in-middle-of-the-stream standing up a new national-federal-state regime within the United States. Congress sent it to the states (12 passed consolidated from 40-odd proposed amendments) to forge a common political community between (a) national "Federalists" along with their Continental and state militia political allies, and (b) local "Anti-Federalists" along with their "soft Tory" political allies, i.e.

- ("Soft Tories" were those farmers and merchants within the United States who supplied the British military during wartime, but who did not participate in either military operations against the US nor civilian depredations against US citizen - one such merchant from the Eastern Shore was actually a Virginia Ratification Convention delegate, voting against the Constitution along with Patrick Henry, the Convention's Antifederalist floor leader).

- HAH! mea culpa. The ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by Congress was on January 14, 1784.

Without objection, I propose to amend the Infobox to that date to make it more useful to the general reader to accommodate the contribution by Shoreranger. Would Shoreranger care to do the collegial honors? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking. Yes, I object.

Inclusion in your alma mater's journal is no basis for determination on what the time span of the Revolutionary Era is so I consider that argument moot, but it is interesting to note that according to the journal's webpages "The OI invites inquiries from authors of scholarly works pertaining to the histories and cultures of North America from circa 1450 to 1820, including related developments in the British Isles, Europe, West Africa, and the Caribbean." (to convolute things further the website explains "The OI is an independent research organization sponsored by William & Mary."). By your own criteria - which I again do not accept - the Bill of Rights fits squarely within the timframe.

I will not debate your interpretation of the atmosphere in which the Bill of Rights was crafted. Nevertheless the Bill of Rights is frequently understood and read to be the direct line from the rights the Patriots claimed as justification for the Revolution, and represented the legal guarantee of those rights that in large part then separated them from the Empire they just earned their independence from. That's revolutionary.Shoreranger (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As that may be, (a) ten Amendments made as a federal 1788 Constitutional innovation under that new constitution "of the people of the United States" is NOT a part of (b) the American Revolution carried out by the Continental Congress "of sovereign states" 1775-1784.

(1) An unsourced assertion is not persuasive to overturn an article consensus. Your novel contention that the Bill of Rights is a part of the American Revolution is not accepted anywhere to my knowledge, and when given an opportunity here, you have NOT provided any examples other than your own POV bluster belatedly here.

(2) You have not come to TALK to adequately explain any of your other idiosyncratic takes on American history that are unsubstantiated among your blitz of two dozen or so NEVER DISCUSSED changes that you inserted into the article. Your lone-ranger revert is unfounded and without consensus. It is in turn duly reverted until you can find consensus here.

(3) Unsubstantiated "Frequently understood" assertions without any evidence is found to be merely weasel words at Wikipedia. Try an RfC here to develop a consensus rather than WP:bully. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Professional obligations prevent me from responding to this discussion as timely as might be best, but as time allows I have the following response:

You imply in (a) and (b) that for something to be included as part of the social, political and philosophical American Revolution that it must be an action of the Continental Congress. That is not conceded and you provide no source for that assertion.

In (1) you state that because you claim to personally have no knowledge of something it has no validity, which is of course patently false. You claim I have been "given the opportunity" to provide a source here, yet this discussion is less than 24 hours old, so surely "opportunity" is subjective in this case, isn't it? I am tracking down a source or sources, but have had little time for it.

In (2) you again repeat what really seems to be the issue that appears to agitate you the most: the number of edits made by me. Clearly you have a sense of WP:OWN and feel threatened. In addition, you complain that my edits were not discussed beforehand, which of course is not required as "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia." WP:BOLD. You insult me, not for the first time, by casting aspersions upon my sincerity and good faith in engaging in discussion here and claiming that the number of edits are an intentional strategy to obfuscate changes I wish to hide. That is false. In fact, many of the edits were images and grammatical, and made over a period of time not simultaneously. Most other edits are supported by content elsewhere in the article.

Finally, in (3) WP:WW is reserved for article content, not discussion on Talk pages. You accuse me of bullying, which is ironic, as your condescension and tone, as well as use of pejoratives, clearly makes you the aggressor here, though I have no doubt you feel threatened despite no one's intention. With you revert constituting an WP:EW I certainly will be seeking WP:RFCShoreranger (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No, at (a) and (b) I explicitly assert that the American Revolution as an historical period is defined by the agents of the events within the historical period, and in responsible historiography, that period it is not extended as a political stump speech to their successors in a subsequent regime among the following historical era(s), such as the 1791 Bill of Rights or the 2021 John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

The American Cause of independence in the American Revolution is prosecuted by the Continental Congress. Your blustering POV fabrications assert that the existing consensus sourcing in this article cannot be, and that it is not yet achieved, but it can be found by any general reader in the lead sentences, John Markoff in Comparative Studies in Society and History of October 1999, “Where and When Was Democracy Invented?”. The reliable source of the editor consensus here makes a clear distinction between “wartime constitutions [written during the American Revolution] in Britain's rebelling American colonies", referencing Gordon Wood, versus the subsequent “new United States when its Articles of Confederation were replaced by a more enduring [1789] constitution, whose clear provisions for amendment [added] the Bill of Rights” to that new United States after the American Revolution.

- You and I both agree that the intellectual legacy of the American Revolution is brought forward in American history by US Congressional action for the 1791 Bill of Rights and the 2021 John Lewis Voting Act, as neither of us have made objection to that common ground for 30 days, and ‘silence is consent’ as Socrates would have it in Plato’s ‘Dialogues’.

- Post (1) above merely notes the observable fact that you have not been persuasive here, nor is there a consensus here for your unsourced bluster over the Bill of Rights as part of the ARW in this last 30 day period, nor have you followed through with the RfC collegially suggested to you on my part, WITHOUT any fevered imaginings of insult, bully, condescension, aggression, or 'own'. -- all unfounded accusations pilings-on at Talk in your last post that can only be attributed to WP:bully.

- As for (2) in my post above, it may be that the revert(s) took out more than the unsourced POV dating; we should write a memo to some administrator to recommend an article history edit toggle for removing an editor’s "last [1,2,3] edits", rather than the existing wholesale excision of all contributions that stretches back over three entire day’s-worth of frenetic editing by a lone editor like yourself. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Link to section where change is proposed: American Revolution#1651–1748: Early seeds

In the third paragraph of the first section at the end of the first sentence the article states "passing acts regulating the trade of wool,[19] hats,[20] and molasses.[21] The Molasses Act of 1733 was particularly egregious to the colonists", with wool, hats, and molasses wikilinked.

Please move the wikilink from "molasses" to "Molasses act of 1733" such that it looks like ",[20] and molasses.[21] The Molasses Act of 1733 was...". It's unclear that the wikilinks in that sentence link to acts (perhaps they link to wool, or molasses). This change would make the molasses act link more clear and would move the link only a few words later. 184.57.147.234 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I think that if we change that one we may want to provide clarity on the remaining two wikilinks in the offending sentence. I agree entirely with you that it could be ambiguous, as I did assume as you did when I read the sentence. Perhaps should we rewrite the sentence to have the sentence say "Hat Act" etc as a full title link? I Am Chaos (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

In the "Military Hostilities Begin" section this quote "Britain, at the expense of three millions, has killed 150 Yankees this campaign, which is £20,000 a head ... During the same time, 60,000 children have been born in America. From these data his mathematical head will easily calculate the time and expense necessary to kill us all." is sourced to a book, however the exact letter mentioned is available in a more easily accessible format in a government archive at this link: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0137. Could a confirmed account change the source?

Chrysalisk2 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use secondary sources, not primary sources. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Jargon - "Loyalist" and "Patriot"

I understand that these terms may be used by experts in the field, or indeed by Americans, but they are very confusing and I don't think they should be used in the article. I had to Google "Patriot" to determine that it meant revolutionary, which seems much clearer to me. After all, one man's patriot is annother man's traitor, especially in this case. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 17:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Patriot" and "Loyalist" (and "Whig" and "Tory") are standard terms for the main political factions in the American Revolution. Removing them from this article would be like removing "Jacobin" and "Girondin" from the French Revolution article. The lede defines "Patriot" and "Loyalist", and links to the articles about them, so I don't see a problem here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Establishing the first modern constitutional liberal democracy - slavery and female suffrage

This claim appeared unqualified in the lede. I added the qualification that slaves and women were not allowed to vote. I am not sure it should stay in the lede in any form - San Marino has a strong claim to be older, and I can think of no other modern constitutional liberal democracy that allows slavery. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is a "constitutional liberal democracy" defined by what it is or what it is not? For better or worse, slavery has a long history in republics. Republics and democracies depend and operate on their commonly accepted definition of a citizen. Again, for better or worse, that definition at the time of the Revolution did not include people in bondage. Nevertheless, those who qualified as citizens had achieved a federal republic based on the consent of the governed, not on the will of an aristocracy or monarchy. Shoreranger (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A constitutional liberal democracy is a modern concept that definitely excludes slavery (and didn't exist at the time of the revolution). Please check the references. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Disputed edit 052447295

The disputed edit by @L'Origine du monde made the following changes to the lead section:

The Americans in the Thirteen Colonies formed independent states that defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), gaining independence from the British Crown and establishing the United States of America, according to some criteria the first modern constitutional liberal democracy (women and slaves were denied the vote).

It was reverted by @Thucydides411.

I believe the intentions here are clearly good faith. The "according to some criteria" is not needed because the U.S. was the first modern constitutional liberal democracy (although not the first ever). However, I believe it is worth mentioning in the lead that women and slaves were denied the right to vote in the establishment of the U.S. The placing is off though, it would be better included in the following section:

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, though it was not until later centuries that constitutional amendments and federal laws would increasingly grant equal rights to African Americans, Native Americans, poor white men, and women.

Would anyone support incorporating the text to that sentence? ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please join the discussion above. If you check the reference I provided you will see that it is disputed that the US was the first constitutional liberal democracy, and that it does depend on the criteria used. If you have a source that disputes this, please provide it. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

If you read the second reference, it clearly says "Privately owned chattel slavery and the existence of rural majorities subject to seigneurial rights are not com- patible with "democracy" as generally understood in the 1990s, regardless of how dominant minorities or majorities govern themselves and their dependents. In other words, in current notions of democracy legally enforceable structures of servitude, dependence, or deference that subordinate large numbers of adult persons do not exist." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this article too much from a US-centric POV?

This is something I've wondered about. I'm American, born and bred, but I know more about Philippine history than I do about U.S. history. Some items I looked briefly at after some googling today:

• BRITISH HISTORY: THE BRITISH PERSPECTIVE ON THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - on anglotopia.net (bad url fixed 2022-07-03)
• The American Revolution - found on the website of British Library

• A timeline of the American Revolution from 1763 - 1787

• Buried History of the American Revolutionary War - overview and intro to more more specific web pages linked from there. Apparently SELFPUB, but readable and interesting
• American Revolutions - book blurb by the author of Taylor, Alan (2016). American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804. W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-08281-4. Retrieved 2022-02-25.

• Video: Discussion of the book on CSPAN by Alan Taylor (historian), the author

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, I think you should be bold and fix the problem, as no one really cares about the article's talk page anymore. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have the background; I just thought the above might be useful. I have updated the list of links above a bit, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Style Issue

Many of the links in this article are gratuitously italicized; events, organizations, legal acts, and non-lengthy publications are given italicization, when only the titles of novels, long poems, plays, publication series (newspapers, magazines, series titles, etc.), movies/shows, and more obscure things like the names of ships should be italicized. The article is prohibitively frustrating to read because of this, but because it represents a systematic issue throughout the entire article I thought it merited discussion (i.e. it's not a one-off mistake that could just be fixed in a few seconds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7000:2C10:8D90:52A0:CBEC:3AA6 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you should create an account. be bold, and perform the changes. If a person reverts, you now have an excuse to discuss about it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed The IP is absolutely right. The overitalicization was ridiculous and contrary to the WP:MOS Manual of style. A text editor like Google docs' semi-automates the process. It took about three minutes for me to do the work. I did check for errors, and think I caught all of them. That took about ten minutes. Carlstak (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Violent nature of the revolution in lede.

The first sentence describes the revolution as ideological and political. I added violent, as that was a major characteristic. This has been reverted on the grounds that most revolutions are violent. I do not believe this is true of ideological and political revolutions, and I believe violence belongs in the first sentence. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lede begins,

The Americans in the Thirteen Colonies formed independent states that defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)

Even if you don't think that "revolution" implies violence, the "war" part certainly does. I don't see any need to insert the word "violent" into the first sentence, and doing so would just come across as non-neutral. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a war that does not involve violence on a massive scale? Or does not involve various forms of deaths in combat, and executions in the process of suppressing dissent? This is the nature of war, c'est la guerre. Dimadick (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Pig War and Toledo War off the top of my head. More at list of bloodless wars. CAVincent (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is the first sentence needed? Name a single revolution that was not political or ideological. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Easy, the Digital Revolution ... =) Also Revolution 9 , Copernican Revolution was mildly ideological, because of the astonishing assertion that the the planet isn't actually the literal center of the entire universe. Know Einstein (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Should "part of the decolonisation of the Americas" be removed?

The American Revolition was very much not anti-colonial in nature. Yes they ended British colonial rule, but the US just became another colonial power in the continent. Alongside the fact that after its independence Manifest Destiny happened. There is also the fact that a very significant driving factor behind the war was the ban on settlement West of the Appalachians. The restrictions that impacted land speculators (who were among the foremost supporters of the revolution) were heavily impacted as grants beyond the line were repeatedly denied.

Given that the USA continued to be a colonising force as well as a driving factor behind the war being colonial, I dont think it fits. Genabab (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Genabab, thanks for bringing this up. There is a lot of ambiguity in how the word Decolonization is used. Many scholars (and especially older ones) use it almost synonymously with political independence from European empires. More recent scholarship has broadened the meaning substantially (see Decoloniality, Decolonization of knowledge, Indigenous decolonization). This ambiguity does require that use of the term be qualified with links to some of the above articles (and in associated articles like Decolonization of the Americas). The above articles notwithstanding, Wikipedia lacks information about contemporary use of the decolonisation framework as it is applied to Settler colonialism, etc. (part of WP:BIAS).

Currently, the only use of the word 'Decolonization' appears to be twice in the infobox. Content in the infobox is supposed to be supported by text in the article. (MOS:INFOBOX), so you would be justified in removing it, although it would be less contentious to qualify use of the term in an appropriate section of the article. You should have no trouble finding sources for that, but let me know if you need help. Hope you will pursue this, thanks again! Larataguera (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

In that case, I will remove the usage of the term decolonisation of the Americas. At the least for the time being, since the American Revolutionary War page also doesn't include this description (although, if we're being honest that is because I also recommended it).

Unless there is real reason to keep the term (be that, its expansion as decolonisation in the article, or something that refutes the arguments I gave of America as a colonial power) Genabab (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

USA was not founded as a democracy.

The USA was not founded as a democracy. The USA was founded in revolution. George Washington was chosen by a handful of 'electors'. That's not democracy. Elections came years later. In fact, the US president is still chosen by electors and the democratic vote holds no weight. 2600:4041:4146:5700:C58C:6DBF:FBB0:C992 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

How is the 1788–1789 United States presidential election relevant to the American Revolution? Dimadick (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Did all Americans during the Revolution speak in British accents?

There is a theory that George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers of America spoke in British accents, mainly because they were only a few generations away from living in England. The people living on Tangier Island, and the rest of islands off Pamlico Sound, Outer Banks and Chesapeake Bay speak in British accents, which according to scholars dated back to the Colonial era. 95.151.194.14 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Dates given are wrong, and this matters.

the article gives the start and end dates as 22 March 1765 – 15 December 1791.

This goes against the commonly accepted dates, and is wrong. Nothing at all happened on 22 March 1765 except that a piece of legislation, the Stamp Act, was passed in London. This wouldn't have even been known in the colonies til the next ship crossed the ocean, and didn't go into effect until November 1, 1765. And anyway, the Stamp Act was one of the irritants of the time (it was repealed after protests, and tensions relaxed somewhat).

The generally accepted date is April 19 1775, when active fighting broke out, the rubicon was crossed with really no going back, and the American colonies quickly called out the the militia and started send it to war. It is this date which is celebrated in America, and I don't think most academics and experts would dispute this.

If, for some idiosyncratic reason, you didn't want to use April 19 1775, you could use these other dates, which would also be wrong but at least make a tiny bit of sense:

• 1765 (but later in the year), meeting of the Stamp Act Congress
• 1770, the Boston Massacre
• 1773, the Boston Tea Party
• 1774, the Powder Alarm
• 1774, the Capture of Fort William and Mary
• 1774, the Intolerable Acts
• 1774, meeting of the First Continental Congress
• 1775, (but after April 19), Washington takes command of the Continental Army
• 1775, (but before April 19), publication of Common Sense
• 1775, (but after April 19), Battle of Bunker Hill, first pitched battle
• 1776, Declaration of Independence
• 1781, Articles of Confederation go into effect

Actually July 4 1776 would make good sense also. If you don't want to do that or April 19, just give no date. Present it as a series of event with no one event able to be described as the "start".

The end date -- adoption of the bill of rights -- also seems wrong. The peace treaty with England, or Cornwallis's surrender, or the ratification of the bulk of the Constution, or something. If you don't want those, may as well pick the first presidential election, formation of the party system, 14th amendment, whatever.

Sure you can get some historians to say 1765. That is what historians do: come up with a novel turn on historical events. That's how you get recognition and tenure. Otherwise you're just parroting earlier material. But so. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki editors do not choose the dates for big events--published reliable secondary sources (by historians) do that and Herostratus fails to tell us what reliable secondary sources they are using. Rjensen (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd put it at the 1774 convening of the First Continental Congress. Starting at the Stamp Act really makes no sense, and the Boston Tea Party was a protest not a revolution. What is the common accepted date by historians? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution." -John Adams

Shoreranger (talk) Shoreranger (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for when the Revolution started or ended because it is a matter of opinion. There might be consensus of opinion, but if there is I don't know of it. Therefore I just put it at "late 18th century" and I think that's best. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

What date was this Wiki page created?

I am writing an essay and need to do a citation, but need the date lol. 97.124.145.114 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I would use the time of the most recent edit (September 11, 2023) since the article is nowhere near the same as it's original creation. There is a cite feature located though in the left hand side of the page though. —JJB^ers 08:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

From the history section it looks like this is the edit and editor that set the textual page in motion. November 18, 2003. Good luck with the essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

It is listed in the right side bar that the American Revolution began in 1765. This is not true as stated within the article itself. LeoAStudent (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• LeoAStudent, please re-read the first sentence of the article. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Subjective wording in Causes Summary

As of Feb 8, 2024. Most notably noted on first and first half of the second paragraphs, as well as first half of last one. It's the first time I see italics used to stress certain words in wikipedia in the literary sense. I cannot edit this since it's a topic I'm currently researching and have little knowledge on the entire process. 77.49.154.115 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)