Jump to content

Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Americans naturally fickle and disloyal in 2008

Do you think it would be fair to suggest that 'Americans' today are fickle and naturally more likely to lean towards being disloyal to their nation because of their descendants ? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that any conclusion of that sort would be strictly original research, as I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find any reliable sources to back it up, I'd say a pretty resounding no. GlassCobra 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All pants and no trousers?

Aka All Victory & No Losses

The opening statement refers constantly to rebel victories but not their numerous losses which themselves were strategically significant, please edit accordingly or I can. Twobells (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Americans? No such thing at the time

I have started replacing the term 'american' for 'rebel' and 'insurgent' for 'patriot' as that is how both the US, the UK and the UN describe armed civilians attempting to overthrow the legitimate government. From the UN's point of view they are happy with those descriptions and do not consider the wordage partisan, however, I am happy to change it to 'unlawful combatant' if preferred.Twobells (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true previous to to July 4, 1776 but after that they were Americans. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

I have restored the orignal text changed by Twobells. In fact, terms such as "Americans" and "patriots" are used commonly in reliable, professional historical works of the era. I also changed a few other POV terms employed by Twobells. 21st Century political decisions on terminology are irrelevant to works describing events in the 18th Century -- historians trump government officials on matters of historical scholarship. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I support your restoration of the conventional, familiar terms. Not only are they accepted by respected scholars, but reinterpreting or rewriting history would not seem to be a proper function of Wikipedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually there was such thing as american in 1776. The british themselves called the colonist americans in 1759. On the plains there war the Royal American who were actually german but who were colonist. So the word american was not strange to them. [[1]] (Plains2007 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that while a valid word in the 18th century "American" also included Canadians and often those colonists from the Carribean as well. The use of American in this article often fails to distinguish between pro-independence and anti-independence factions. To call the rebel colonists 'Patriots' is POV. While the term has popular usage in the United States, it is largely unknown outside. A more balanced compromise term should be used Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, American is widely attested before 1759, at which point it did not include Canadians; Jamaicans and Bermudians are a minor complication. Calling one side in this war Patriots is common usage, and (in Dr. Johnson's sense) comtemporary usage; their opponents called themselves Loyalists, as they are still called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really object to Americans being used exclusively to mean inhabitants of the 13 colonies, as this is logical if a little simplistic. The two things I strongly object to are the use of the word American to imply the pro-independence faction (as in:

Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans Colonel James Livingston led the 1st Canadian Regiment at the Battle of Quebec (1775) and Moses Hazen led the 2nd Canadian Regiment to support the American cause at the Battle of Saint-Pierre. They both continued to fight for the Americans until the end of the war.

which completly ignores the role of American Loyalists in the war. It hijacks the word 'American' to apply exclusively to the pro-independence cause. The second thing I object to is the use of Patriot, which is POV, and lacks international perspective. Outside of the United States the term 'Patriot' to describe the rebel colonists is almost entirely unheard of and unused. The article needs a better term to describe the pro-indepedence cause other than patriot or American, both of which are highly contentious. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Highly contentious" to whom? Is there some raging debate among historians about the use of the terms "patriot" or "American" as commonly used by reliable, professional, historical sources? Why don't you tell us which leading scholars of the American Revolution refrain from using the term "American" in their works and we can compare those folks with those who do. Do you disagree that the majority of the leading historians of the Revolution are American? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact the majority of historians on the subject are American, but it doesn't just make it automaticlly correct terminoligy for an international wikipedia. The use of the term "American" to describe pro-independence forces might seem natural and comforting to some modern Americans, but it ignores the complex civil war-like nature of the conflict. Loyalists were not any less Americans because they did not support seperation. The term Patriot is a POV expression that is essentially used in one country alone. By contrast to many of the British, Irish,Canadians and West Indians they were simply rebels. I am not advocating that the pro-independence forces be called rebels, but rather that a more neutral name is used. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "comfort" -- it is a matter of accurately presenting the views of the leading historians on the American Revolution. Historians are quite capable of using the term "American" in the same way it is used in this article and still address "the complex civil war-like nature of the conflict". You dodge my question which is very relevant to this issue. Let me repeat it -- Why don't you tell us which leading scholars of the American Revolution refrain from using the term "American" in their works and we can compare those folks with those who do.
As I said elsewhere, your use of the tag is inappropriate. If you go to the applicable project page you will see that it clearly says:
"Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that 'Patriot' is modified to a more neutral term in the article. I am not suggesting that it it was not a term used by some of the pro-independence supporters to describe themselves, nor am I disputing that it is clearly the most common term used in the United States today. What I am highlighting is its widespread lack of usage outside the United States. It is also a POV term, which makes it unsuitable for this article.

Your question regarding the listing of books is a red herring. It would come back to the same point you have already made about there being more American books about the subject. Your argument essentially comes down to "the United States is bigger, so it should have its way on this subject", ignoring the fact that this is an international wikipedia that covers the entire world.

With all due respect, many leading American historians use the words English and British interchangibly, seemingly unaware that the two are not the same thing. This does not exactly fill me with confidence when it comes to their abillity in defining the term "American" in the complex civil war context that existed during the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Patriot and Loyalist are equally traditional, and equally neutral; if we dispose of both, we will have to invent our own terms for the two sides, which is contrary to policy. The charge of confusion cuts both ways; I have seen a British life of Lord North which used jerrymander of the efforts to keep Wilkes out of the House, an error alike in meaning and in etymology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Patriot is either traditional or neutral, but I recognise that the place to discuss that is over at the [[Patriot (American Revolution) article. The major point I would still like to make regarding this article is the use of the term American to describe the pro-independence cause which ignores the portion of the population who were either anti-independece or simply neutral. I think the article should change all reference to the "American" cause to something cleary indentifying it to the pro-independence supporters.

  • It is certainly traditional; the OED finds its first quotation, in that sense of "resistance fighter", from Franklin in 1773, and cites British sources for the general sense. It should be intelligible to a Commonwealth reader; it is defined here and widely used; and in any case, this article, being strongly associated with the United States, is properly in American English.
  • It is no less neutral than Loyalist, which we must use, unless we go to the actually traditional Tory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the jerrymander point as it just re-directs to gerrymander. Thats just a mildly different spelling that wouldn't be contentious (I'd have thought), and to be honest I didn't know there were two different spellings until you pointed it out but like color/colour it doesn't change the nature of the word. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is (like many redirects) an allowance for a common misspelling. The source of gerrymander is Elbridge Gerry; see the OED's first and fourth quotations for the noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article clearly thats true, which is why the word Jerrymander re-directs to Gerrymander but I don't see how much that affects this article or the debate over the use of the terms 'patriot' and 'american' to mean the pro-independence supporters during the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not to be settled by dismissing the historians of one of the nations involved for blanket inaccuracy; both have had problems. (As for the actual complaint made: references to North, or Cornwallis, or Clinton, as English rather than British are mere accuracy; they were.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have been a bit hasty in offering such a blanket dismissal of US historians purely on those grounds for which I apoligose, but I was responding to what I felt was an unfair dismissal of the opinions of non-Americans just because there are less of them. There are many fine American historians on the subjects. While references to the English Army, English Navy, War with England (when they clearly mean Britain) that slightly their credibillity in my eyes, but these are matters of incorrect terminology rather than serious historical dispute.

On a point of interest, Henry Clinton was actually born in Newfoundland and grew up in New York where his father was Governor. When he went to Britain to join the Army aged 13 he was generally considered an American but Cornwallis and Lord North were, as you point out, essentially Englishmen.

I feel we are getting sidetracked a bit, althrough I have learned a bit about gerrymander for which I thank you (I had always thought the term came from Ireland, but I think I was confusing it with boycotting). I am going to start a new discussion topic at the bottom of the page as the points I am raising do not fall under the present title. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

I am not sure what the criteria for listing commanders in the infobox. While some of the American ones are more famous, they are not necessarily the highest ranking commanders. For example, John Paul Jones was only a Capitan, and while considered father of the American Navy, and more famous than Esek Hopkins, Hopkins was Commander in Chief of the Fleet during the entire war. Rds865 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hopkins was not the commander for the entire war, only about half of it. But I do see what you're saying, and I do believe John Paul Jones has no purpose being on the list of main commanders in the warbox. He was no different than the several other Continental Navy captains except in that he was marginally more successful than most of his colleagues. He had no overall command position than that of his own vessel, when he even had one. Auror (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the colonists weren't "Americans"

All pants and no trousers, sometimes certain groups of people can only see a situation oneway, and not the other.

Example; Let's say you home state or region, which ofcourse you are very proud of, breaks off and becomes an independant nation- due to polictical reasons, (the otehr kept electing GWB types) or taxes, or whatever, think of any unfair situation that stokes your flame, despite wanting this autonomy - you would still be an American, would you not? You just want what is fair to you and yours, and whilst your state gets sucked dry in order to fund already thriving areas hundreds/thousands of miles away, you're left in the crap. So the fight begins, and you get your independence. Are you still an American? ofcourse you are. Think about it. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mysore & Ireland

Shouldn't the Kingdom of Mysore be listed as a combatant on the anti-British side, as the Third Mysore War was effectively an extension of the American Revolutionary War.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Ireland should be listed as a full combatant on the British side, rather than volunteers which is misleading. The Kingdom of Ireland was tied to the British Crown, but it did still function as an indepdent entity. There was an Irish Army, which was supported by the finances of the Irish Parliamentm, and it contributed disproportinatly to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Kingdom of Ireland should not be included, unless Hanover is; His Britannic Majesty's realms did not conduct war independently; so Irish volunteers should be dropped. Considering Ireland's actions in 1782, however, there is an argument they made a separate peace.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term American to describe pro-independence cause

In several places the article uses the term "American" to describe the pro-independence Americans, including in the opening paragraph when an 'American' victory is described at Saratoga. Further on in the article there is a sub-heading "Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans". This represents a hijacking of the term "American" to mean exclusive pro-indepdence. The word American should be qaulified with another such as "Seperatist" or "pro-independence" Americans distinguishing them from the anti-independence Americans who made up a large portion of the population. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, let's ignore the terminology used by (1) Americans during the Revolution, (2) the British during the Revolution, and (3) the leading historians of the American Revolution and make up a phrase to be used exclusively on Wikipedia. Bad idea. Please give us examples of leading historians of the era who do not use "Americans" as a stand alone term in preference for your suggested terms. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What harm is there in qaulifying the use of American on this page to make clear we mean pro-independence Amercicans? I am not suggesting we do not use the term American, but rather that it is accompanied by something to make clear which Americans we are speaking of. The use of the term 'American' seems to imply that the Loyalists were a tiny remnant allied to the British, who had turned their back on the overwhelming majority of their Americans who supported independence and thrown their lot in with an invading army of a foreign country (Britain) which is erroneous. It seems to imply that after the 1776 declaration of independence (and indeed, even earlier) those supporting a break had a monopoly on the term American.

I am not requesting this be changed to something pejorative such as "rebels" or "American rebels", I am simply asking that this article better acknowledge the complexities of the Loyalist Vs Seperatist factions of what was in many senses a civil war within the British empire rather than the "America" + allies Vs British + allies that seems to predominate on wikipedia and in many history books. I don't see how it would hurt. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then would including the Loyalist units in the order of battle in Armies, militias, and mercenaries be enough for now? We should do this anyway, but I don't have a figure at hand. There must be an example that used American as their unit name. I don't think presenting this as an Empire-wide civil war is necessarily helpful; Burke and Dunning and Fox were loyal to the Crown, while opposing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Lord C -- You are the one who wants to change the status quo -- you need more of an argument than "what harm will it do?"
There are over a dozen references to Loyalists throughout the article and they are listed in the summary box as one of the belligerents. The way to discuss "the complexities of the Loyalist Vs Seperatist" is to add, in an appropriate article (there is a separate article on the Loyalists), a documented narative that explains those "complexities" not already in that article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord C, is this an effort to make our British readers feels better? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ]

Could this issue not be remedied in the article by use of the term United States instead of American. I understand there has been quite a long running saga over the use of 'American' on wikipedia about whether it should be used to describe those from the United States of America or whether it should be used to refer to those from the Americas as a whole. This would serve as a compromise for that issue as well. Surely no objection could be made to the replacement of "American" with the United States?
It does seem a little too simplistic to brand it as a straight "American" vs Britain conflict as the War of 1812 was), through this is not a big problem outside of the repeated use of "American" to mean pro-independence. The article actually is not too bad on the Loyalists, but could have a little more info. I will try to get some more resources about the Loyalist units who fought - I definetly know the Royal American Rangers were a regiment and remained so after the war, becoming the 60th foot of the British Army.
Althrough I have taken the user name Lord Cornwallis and despite the fact that I was born in in London - I am actually a Canadian Citizen with a great deal of Irish blood. I am genuinely trying to veiw this from an international perspective. I am neutral with regards the outcome for the war. I am not bothered who won, and IMO the two sides should have compromised before it ever reached war. It wasn't worth a drop of blood, British/Canadian/German/Irish or American - but that is all by the bye.
I hope this isn't being interpreted as an anti-US vendetta. I personally tend to sympathise with many of the pro-independence Americans aims (not those to do with slavery or the issue of the Native Americans) but rather that away from the over-the-top hyperbole about freedom they were raising serious points about the nature of goverment in the British Empire. I am admirer of William Pitt the Younger who took a similar line. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of United States would often be a positive error, on two grounds:
  • It is certainly wrong for the first fifteen months of the war, before July 4, 1776.
  • It is wrong for the several occasions in which the forces on one side belonged to an individual State (or other unit), not the United States.
It is also seriously misleading. The Government of the United States now extant did not come into existence until six years after the war; it is hard enough now to make clear that the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation were not the present Congress of the United States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Then I return to my previous suggestion of qaulifying every use of American with an indication of whether it is talking of loyalists or republican Americans. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I should prefer not to. (For one thing, there were some Patriots who were not republicans.) Unless the language is actually ambiguous (and I have not read through, but I doubt it will be so often), this would be a pedantry adding length to the article to no reader benefit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect that is hijacking of the term "American" by one side in the conflict. Calling Saratoga an "American victory" in the opening paragraph is just wrong. To put it in context with another international conflict it is like calling a Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil War a Spanish victory. It was of course, but it was a Spanish nationalist victory and should, and does state that. This article needs to do the same. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

However, it is exactly like calling, let us say, the Battle of Vittoria an Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese victory. Possibly more so: there appear to have been more Spaniards fighting for Jerome I than there were Tories at Saratoga. If there were a hijacking, it would have been conducted in 1776 and compounded in 1783; but at this point one must ask if there is any support for the Noble Lord's position, and if not, ask him to consider yielding to consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure when Lord Cornwallis uses the "hijacked" term "American" in his own edit summaries, he doesn't mean to be a hypocrite:

Added Sir Guy Carleton. Commander at Quebec in 1775. Later N.American commander-in-chief. Benedict Arnold was a notable American commander during the invasion of Canada and later at Saratoga.

I think it's clear (and I'm sure this is confirmed somewhere in that gigantic tome of guidelines on these matters) that the most commonly used term is what should be used in the article. Historians agree on this one, it's not Wikipedia's place to try to change respected historical precedent. Llakais (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS does nothing so useful; but it's in WP:COMMONNAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Llakais this discussion is not the reason why the page has been semi-protected. There has been no edit war over this. This article has a long history of vandalism which is why I guess that is why it is blocked to newer editors.

I don't feel this is a petty argument. I am raising a serious point about both accuracy and consistency in this article and others on the topic. My position on this is fairly simple the term "Americans" should only be used on its own to describe those from America (the 13 colonies) as in: Benedict Arnold, George Washington and Sir Henry Clinton were from America, therefore they were "Americans". When referring to either the Loyalists or Revolutionaries it should state that. (eg. American Loyalists surrendered at Saratoga. Saratoga was a victory for the American Revolutionaries.

This issue has actually been nagging at me for some time now, but I have always supressed the urge to raise the point before because I didn't want to rock the boat. I could anticipate this discussion would pan out, with people defending the popular but incorrect misuse of the term "Americans" for (common usage) reasons that I mildly sympathise with, but which have no place if the article is to receive a better rating in the future. I don't really understand why this is so contentious, it would make the article clearer without significantly adding to its length.

Examining the page there were only two bit that really stand out to me at the moment as in need of immediate change, perhaps because they appear so early in the article. The reference to an American victory at Saratoga in the introduction, and the sub-heading "Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans". I have made some small edits to the article as a proposed change. Please feel free to re-edit them or discuss them, I am not looking for an edit war - I am interested in establishing a clarification and consensus on this point, at which point I will go off to expand some of the other articles on the subjects, particularly regarding the wider war outside the American theatre.

Regards the use of the term with Benedict Arnold I wanted to qualify the term but ran out of space in the edit summary. I feared it might be pounced on like this. The example of Sir Edward Creasy arrogant and repeated misuse of the term English to mean British is perhaps another example of why the English are not always the most loved amongst their Celtic neighbours. I wasn't particularly impressed by his historical analysis which seemed a bit simplistic, but thank you for posting it. It made interest reading.

Again I hope this does not seem like I am waging an anti-American battle. The people who I am standing up for here were themselves in fact American. It seems to me the American Loyalists received some of the worst treatment during the war, and following it their role and grievances have largely been marginalised or even ignored. Their native land, America, has effectively disowned them, Canada has never embraced them and they have always received a pretty cold shoulder in Britain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are not looking to start an edit war, you picked a strange way to show it. In both cases I have reverted your attempts to qualify the term "Americans" where it is unnecessary. There is no consensus for your changes -- please don't make further changes of this nature until there is one. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, injecting your own political sentiment about the supposed mistreatment of Loyalists is not the right way to go about having a quiet, unemotional discussion concerning this relatively trivial issue. At the very least, the term "Patriots" could be used - that would certainly clear up any perceived ambiguity. But past "mistreatment" of a group does not warrant any kind of allowances for its depiction in a factual encyclopedia. Llakais (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There was indeed mistreatment of Loyalists, witnessed at length by J._Hector_St._John_de_Crevecoeur and ordered by numerous Patriot organixations (although the Loyalists were by no means alone), but this is not the place to avenge anybody's grievances, or this page will resemble the Gdanzig and Macedonian debacles. Nor is it the place to reform the historiography of the English-speaking peoples. We use, and we are required by policy to use, the terms found in our sources: we reflect them, not amend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Llakais (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_4&oldid=1136514968"