Gwillhickers (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
In the markup for the info-box there's a hidden note that reads: ''Consensus agrees mercenaries is unnecessary; see Talk''. Can someone point to where this consensus was established. When I checked Talk archives I found a discussion where there was overwhelming consensus against using the misleading term ''Auxiliaries''. [[Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 13#Mercenaries|That discussion can be found here.]] I'm just curious – at when point did the consensus get completely turned around? -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 20:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC) |
In the markup for the info-box there's a hidden note that reads: ''Consensus agrees mercenaries is unnecessary; see Talk''. Can someone point to where this consensus was established. When I checked Talk archives I found a discussion where there was overwhelming consensus against using the misleading term ''Auxiliaries''. [[Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 13#Mercenaries|That discussion can be found here.]] I'm just curious – at when point did the consensus get completely turned around? -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 20:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Discussion on French Revolution == |
|||
As the BritClique is now in the process of censoring the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution, it would seem appropriate to inform editors of this page that a discussion is currently going on [[Talk:French_Revolution#American_Influence_on_the_French_Revolution|here]]. Please contribute. [[User:021120x|021120x]] ([[User talk:021120x|talk]]) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:41, 7 September 2020
American Revolutionary War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mysore and position of spain
-during the war, the kingdom of Mysore was mostly an American Co-belligerent, as it fought against the British at the same time the US was rebelling against them, so i think it should be put into the co-belligerent section. the source i have is this paragraph into the page anglo mysore wars:
"The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–84) witnessed bloodier battles with fortunes fluctuating between the contesting powers. Tipu defeated Baillie at the Battle of Pollilur in Sept. 1780, and Braithwaite at Kumbakonam in Feb. 1782, both of whom were taken prisoner to Seringapatam. This war saw the rise of Sir Eyre Coote, the British commander who defeated Hyder Ali at the Battle of Porto Novo and Arni. Tipu continued the war following his father's death. Finally, the war ended with the signing of a treaty on 11 March 1784, the Treaty of Mangalore, which restored the status quo ante bellum. The Treaty of Gajendragad in April 1787 ended the conflict with the Marathas..[1]
-about Spain, it should be put in the Belligerent Section, as it fought alongside the americans and even sent troops to help them, different from the dutch and mysore, that fought agaisnt britain but in the other side of the world, not helping the US directly.
Arandomitalo-japaneseamerican (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- France was an ALLY of the US Congress for fourteen months. The Franco-American treaty for defensive war to guarantee American independence and to preserve free trade at their Treaty of Alliance (1778) from 6 February 1778, until fourteen months later, when France abrogated it with a secret Franco-Spanish treaty between the Bourbon kings for offensive war to acquire territory for imperial expansion and to invade England at their Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) on 12 April 1779. (Morris 1983, p.33) - - - After 19 October 1781, no fighting anywhere in the world can initiated by a “belligerent” in the American Revolutionary War, nor a “co-belligerent” of the US Congress in their fight for independence, because at that date, there was no more conflict (belligerency) between Britain and the independence Congress.
- France and Spain were co-belligerents with the US for just under three years (31 months) . Co-belligerency with the US from Aranjuez small>12 April 1779 takes place in places that can be related to the British subjects in America attaining their political independence from Great Britain. That status extends until the time the US is no longer a belligerent. Shortly after British surrender at Yorktown 19 October 1781, the British and Americans entered into a worldwide ceasefire, then an armistice in early 1782. By April Congress had de-funded its Army and Navy, furloughing its soldiers home “to remain until the conclusive peace”, when their regiments were formally disbanded without reassembling.
- The Second Anglo-Mysore War is sparked by the Bourbon Kings declaring war on Britain. The Franco-Spanish Alliance based on their Pacte de Famille and the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779). They declare war on Britain for imperial gain, not to guarantee US independence (as was the case in the previous FR-US Treaty of Alliance). Britain does not seize the French port of Mahé, India, to put down the Thirteen Colony rebellion in North America. There is no document evidence to connect the French defense of Mahé as its material assistance to the American rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- "France was an ALLY of the US Congress for fourteen months..." I'm hoping that's a simple mistake - the Treaties were not cancelled until the Convention of 1800, and more importantly obliged the US to defend French interests in the Carribean during the 1792 to 1797 War of the First Coalition. That dispute drove the Quasi-War, is why Congress refused to approve any treaties until the 1945 UN Treaty (yes), and why the US still has a tendency to sign agreements (eg NAFTA, opening to Cuba etc), then abrogate them. Its a really significant point, and one to get right. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback from Military Project Assessment Request
I've applied again for a second article assessment at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, noting:
- - ELEVEN-CATEGORIES IMPROVED, recap & new: 1. Intro & all sections place colonies in First British Empire context throughout; - 2. Infobox balanced Am & GB leaders, cmdrs, added Sp & Fr cmdrs, distinguished among ‘belligerent-ally’ Fr, ‘co-belligerent’ Sp & Dutch, ‘combatants’ in ARW battles: Indian & German units, trim ‘losses’ detail; - 3. Boston-centered narrative trim; 4. diplomatic trim & detail to sister article; - 5. All-images ‘alt=’ descriptions; - 6. All-caption copyedits to remove Patriot bias; - 7. balanced images ADDING British leaders, British commanders, British fighting; - 8. Added Indian regular colonels (1) GB & (1) US; - 9. Added woman fighting; - 10. Added Royal Navy ships, US ships, French ships; and, - 11. Added or rewrote Harvard reference for all citations as required.
- (1) Positive feedback from Svejk74, of the Irish Maritime Project: "On a broader point, still unresolved, I think the article is far too long and diffuse. There's plenty of solid information there, but not structured in a particularly helpful way - I found myself scrolling down the page looking for an entry point into what actually happened. I realise this is a large and complex topic (particularly compared to the small-scale Early Modern stuff I usually work on!) but if something like the War of the Spanish Succession can be explained concisely, this can too. You have enough information for several Good Articles there."
- And again, "My own instinct would be to take out material like the comparison of the different leaders and combatants and the detailed material on logistics, weapons, etc and either a) use it to create subsidiary articles or b) use it to beef up any existing ones. - - This gives you the opportunity to keep the main article focused on the political / economic background and the central events of the conflict without taking the reader off into a discussion of "molar-breakers", corporal punishment in the military, musket types, Howe's "crapulous mornings", etc. This stuff should be retained, just not perhaps in a place where it breaks up the main thrust of the article."
- (2) An encouraging note from Hawkeye7, an Australian coordinator for the Military History Project:
"An article like this is tremendously difficult, and you are to be congratulated for taking it on."
Next section: an outline of things-to-do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Five general category-sections
I see the article as now composed of five general category sections, but all the common elements are not adjacent to one another in five groups.
- 1. Infobox.
- 2. Introduction.
- 3. Background: political & social history, earlier wars & diplomacy.
- 4. Conflict and aftermath - the focus of this article.
- 5. Participants: sections detailing each belligerent, co-belligerent, and combatant, armies & navies, commanders & units, logistics & army life.
So, without objection, I’ll start the process of “sorting them” first, before anything else. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The Intro and the 'RS' school teacher
An editor has made attempts to introduce Mr. John D. Granger to our Bibliography, a school teacher who writes of historical things. His book The Battle of Yorktown: A Reassessment, is on record as having been sent to an academic journal for review, but in the fifteen years since its publication, there is no record that any academic journal has chosen to review it as a scholarly work. See a JSTOR all-database search for the title's "book review". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- What about Jerone Greene then? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Contested detail is NOT for the Introduction
- At the Intro an insert was made to “add major point” here for
” The Yorktown campaign did not end the war but it was the last major battle on the American mainland as the fighting continued for two more years”
. I reverted it here, “Intro should NOT contain a detail not in the Article. It is contested, it must be in 'Aftermath' with a citation”. The Introduction is not the place for the editor to "make a point" not previously made in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Intro paragraph continuity
- AT THE INTRO, citing the reason, "ce: Introduction - paragraphing continuity: place 'Yorktown aftermath’ sentence with paragraph, 'In America, 1778-Yorktown’ paragraph – NOT as the topic sentence for paragraph on 'British Parliament & British Treaty." I added sourced material here from a Spanish scholar citing Frank de Varona, the editor of an academic journal, Hispanic Presence in the United States: Historical Beginnings, Miami.
- This is the Intro for the American Revolutionary War, so I re-cast the sentence, RESULT: War between Britain and France allied with Spain dragged on for another two years over their imperial aims called out in the Treaty of Aranjuez.[a]
- ^ The Bourbon Family Pact obligated Spain to fight after American Independence, and its own stated goal there was to recover Gibraltar from the British regardless of Americans achieving independence.[1] Spain was an ally of France, but not of America.[2]
- ^ Yaniz. 2009, p. ii
- ^ Yaniz. 2009, p. i, quoting Frank de Varona in the journal, Hispanic Presence in the United States: Historical Beginnings”, Miami
- Yaniz, Jose I. (2009). "The Role of Spain in the American Revolution: An Unavoidable Mistake" (PDF). Marine Corps University.
Spain declared war on Great Britain in June 1779 as an ally of France but not of America … The Bourbon Family Compact obligated Spain with commitments to France; and the Spanish Crown answered the call. Madrid thus took an unavoidable political strategic mistake.
- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Sub-section: British defeat in America
- Here, I copyedited an awkwardly written sentence, and joined the one-sentence paragraph hanging at the end of the section.
- RESULT: The last sentence in the last paragraph narrating the conclusion of the Siege of Yorktown, now reads: “Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland, but Britain fought France and Spain elsewhere for two more full years.”[Grainger footnote]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- How about if I put this which reflects thr overal reality. Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought globally France, Spain and Holland for two more full years.” Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Dutch Republic should not be equated with Holland. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought France, Spain and the Dutch Republic globally for two more full years.” 👍 Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Good, or a smoother read might be for the second sentence: ... on the American mainland. But for the next two years, Britain would continue its global fight with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. Your choice. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought France, Spain and the Dutch Republic globally for two more full years.” 👍 Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Dutch Republic should not be equated with Holland. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- How about if I put this which reflects thr overal reality. Except for a few skirmishes and minor campaigns until the final peace, Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland. Britain however fought globally France, Spain and Holland for two more full years.” Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Section missing
There seems to be a lack of a section in the aftermath of the war after Yorktown. Perhaps we could add a section with what happened in the minor campaigns after Yorktown on the North American mainland. Clearly there was fighting such as at the Battle of the Blue Licks, Battle of the Delaware Capes and the American Privateer raids on Nova Scotia. As Edward G. Lengel mentions in his 2012 book 'A Companion to George Washington' as critical as the victory at Yorktown was to the American cause it did not end the war. and a good link here The War Did Not End at Yorktown by James Ambler Johnston, 'The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography' Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1952), pp. 444-457 or one could go further and quote David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro's The American Revolution: A World War on page 221, in relation to British victories at Gibraltar and Saintes in 1782 - these not the siege of Yorktown were the last engagements of the American Revolution. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are dozens of minor battles and skirmishes that are not covered in this article - no need to start including the few that occurred after Yorktown. Such a section would be better placed contextually in the Yorktown campaign article. A summary statement about continued fighting, which you've just included, is sufficient for purposes of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to include them in regards to the fact that there was fighting going on after Yorktown I will include section at some point or sub section a part of the aftermath. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wayne's Savannah campaign, Greene's operations around Charleston and the continuing campaigning in the western theater all need to be mentioned at the very least.XavierGreen (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The battles in of themselves were rather obscure, like many other battles that are not covered in this article. The important consideration in that summary section is that some of the fighting continued regardless of the ceasefire. This article only covers major battles and events. Concern was expressed also that the ARW article is too long, so we shouldn't be adding another section just to belabor the idea that there was some minor fighting that continued, which is the primary consideration here. There are dedicated articles to cover these sorts of battles. There's no need to do so here. If this is a pressing issue for you we can always add a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- EXACTLY
"The battles in and of themselves were rather obscure."
So, alongside the Battle of the Saintes in Spring of 1782, editors would have us compare the British defense against the American Savannah campaign as an example of comparable British military engagements that year? Let us see. As found in the JAR by Hugh T. Harrington, published by Bruce H. Franlklin (a XavierGreen source), Savannah with a British-German garrison of 1000 professional soldiers were loosely surrounded by a Americans under General Greene it is true, General Wayne commanding 400 who promptly burned all the forage on farms surrounding Savannah a half-mile to create a no-man’s land. - - American forces consisted of one company of Georgia militia, a detachment of Continental dragoons, and mostly a hodge-podge of (a) untrained Loyalist “reclaimed citizens” who enlisted in 1782 (after Yorktown Oct ‘81), to regain title to their confiscated property, and (b) Hessian deserters who in garrison were not trusted to sentry duty in the center-city. Proclamations were snuck into Savannah:
“A full pardon and protection, plus 200 acres of land, a cow and two breeding swine were offered to anyone who had joined the British or sought protection with them on condition that they surrender to General Wayne and agree to serve under him until the enemy either surrendered or left Georgia.”
- - Wayne conducted “small, sometimes very small, raids and ambushes", with a few dozen casualties on both sides. He lost his Carolina (Continental) Dragoons 6 February 1782, their terms of enlistment having expired. All Continental regiments nationwide were to be furloughed home by Act of Congress May 1782, effective in June by Washington's General Order (before Gibraltar). Given the British policy of withdrawal for commitment in the Caribbean (not Gibraltar), they withdrew to Charleston unopposed by Wayne, a half-mile away in all directions.
- After October 1781, there were additional raids and ambushes against American settlement and fur trappers unauthorized by the British, by rogue Loyalists and Indians along the western frontier for the most part, far removed from British command and control, not under Royal command, and not funded by London. ON BALANCE, NOT OF SIGNIFICANCE for an encyclopedia article surveying the entire American Revolutionary War, other than one (1) summary sentence, to the effect:
- “Yorktown ended campaigning by the British against American independence, the colonial war Prime Minister was ousted in Parliament, and the peace Whigs began the peace-making process culminating in a Preliminary Peace 30 November 1782. Afterwards former British allies among Loyalists and Indians occasionally raided and ambushed American settlements and fur traders leading up to later American-Indian wars in the Cherokee southwest and the Shawnee northwest against their former British-allied foes.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes that happened, campaigns took place but not on a scale of Yorktown, but there was NO CEASEFIRE. On February 4, 1783, it was King George III that declared a permanent ceasefire to the American Revolution, that was when all fighting ended. unauthorized by the British? Do you think that Captain Thomas Frederick was reprimanded for his victory over the US navy in the Battle of the Delaware Capes. One thing is for sure the Royal Navy disrupted American trade with a blockade and this began to effect US efforts to raise money as well as causing a drop-off in trade. This was further complicated by France's reluctance to extend more loans. This meant that in 1782 Congress put troops on half pay BUT all Continental regiments nationwide were furloughed home by Act of Congress in June 1783 not the year before. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have split the Aftermath section from the Treaty and peace of Paris; the latter of which I have also copyedited and placed in chronological order. There is also some repetition which have also removed. I hope it is better. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Will fix the footnote errors shortly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks okay. I was pleasantly surprised with the reference that Gibraltar "became involved" in the ARW in that it drew away resources from the U.S. continent - comprehensive, and not misleading. Also, I would not object to a footnote after the sentence -- "Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland, but Britain fought France and Spain elsewhere for two more full years", enumerating the battles that followed the ceasefire. My only passing objection is using the 'History place' as a reference. With all the credentialed scholarly works on the ARW it seems we could come up with a source, or two, with a recognized name attached, but for now it will do.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Gibraltar reference was already there, as was the 'History Place' citation but will check anlther source. Noted that Grainger uses the sentence To begin at the end: the battle of Yorktown was the prelude to two more full years of fighting; definitive peace did not arrive until November 1783 in his book - 'Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Reassessment'. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- More accurately, it was two more years of provoked and inconsequential skirmishes not even mentioned by nearly all the sources on the ARW. Let's not lose sight of, or try to diminish, the idea that it was Yorktown, overall, that ended major fighting and dissolved the will to continue the fight in Parliament, ultimately sending many of the British garrisons and fleets sailing off to defend their possessions in the West Indies, etc. Added a couple of points using Ketchum, 2014, Victory at Yorktown. Still checking other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed it was as I have said, offensive actions on the American mainland were cancelled by Parliament in early 1782. We might put a section called End of the War which could include the the Navy campaign off the American coast where there was continued fighting (the Royal Navy blockade actually tightened even more after 1781). However I'll leave that for someone else as (apart from Royal naval blockade) I know scant about the minor campaigns led by Greene around Charleston, Wayne's campaign around Savannah, the western theater where the biggest battles took place after Yorktown and the American Privateer raids on Nova Scotia. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- More accurately, it was two more years of provoked and inconsequential skirmishes not even mentioned by nearly all the sources on the ARW. Let's not lose sight of, or try to diminish, the idea that it was Yorktown, overall, that ended major fighting and dissolved the will to continue the fight in Parliament, ultimately sending many of the British garrisons and fleets sailing off to defend their possessions in the West Indies, etc. Added a couple of points using Ketchum, 2014, Victory at Yorktown. Still checking other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Gibraltar reference was already there, as was the 'History Place' citation but will check anlther source. Noted that Grainger uses the sentence To begin at the end: the battle of Yorktown was the prelude to two more full years of fighting; definitive peace did not arrive until November 1783 in his book - 'Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Reassessment'. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks okay. I was pleasantly surprised with the reference that Gibraltar "became involved" in the ARW in that it drew away resources from the U.S. continent - comprehensive, and not misleading. Also, I would not object to a footnote after the sentence -- "Yorktown was the last major battle on the American mainland, but Britain fought France and Spain elsewhere for two more full years", enumerating the battles that followed the ceasefire. My only passing objection is using the 'History place' as a reference. With all the credentialed scholarly works on the ARW it seems we could come up with a source, or two, with a recognized name attached, but for now it will do.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Will fix the footnote errors shortly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the the American Privateer raids on Nova Scotia
means the South Carolina Navy NOT the aforementioned wp:ERROR US Navy. The SCN frigate South Carolina was a Holland-built vessel with a Holland-born captain and a foreign crew, rented from a French nobleman owed one-fourth all prize money. On its maiden voyage from Holland to the Caribbean, it captured ten British merchants, prized at Havana. But after the share owed the Chevalier of Luxembourg, South Carolina gained no net revenue from the raider’s operation before its capture out of Delaware Bay. See J.F. Cooper, p.135-136, History of the Navy of the United States of America at Internet Archive. Not sure about, the western theater where the biggest battles took place after Yorktown
ambushing six fur traders, and some got away … ? Second frontier raid, the Loyalists and Indians lost more in their attack than the surprised and ambushed defenders, a dozen or so on each side? See Clodfelter’s accounts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the South Carolina navy nor the fur trappers battles. Like I said that is for someone else to fill at some point. We mustn't forget the fighting - the biggest battles in the Western theater were the Crawford expedition or the Battle of the Blue Licks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- One can only wonder how effective a British blockade would have been if they were not allowed to engage the Americans after the ceasefire. Then, otoh, perhaps they were there to keep them pesky ol' Frenchmen from coming in. During this time Washington also issue a similar ceasefire for his troops. Did it allow for exceptions, which might explain some of the following battles? That's another area that seems a bit sketchy, at least for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Seems more rogue operations in North America separate from, and not condoned, by the Paris negotiators nor their governments in London or Philadelphia.
- - Sourced from Anderson’s biography of Colonel William Crawford archived by the Ohio Historical Society, the article at Crawford expedition reports “was a volunteer expedition and not a regular army operation”, so they elected one of three candidates for commanding officer. The Infobox reports Belligerent “Pennsylvanian militiamen”, but I believe by 1777, Pennsylvania militia elected company grade officers, but NOT their commanding officer, who was appointed by the Pennsylvania Assembly.
- - It would be interesting to drill down to see to the details among differences between 1782 Pennsylvania an Virginia militias, but we can make the editorial decision from 50,000 feet, this was not a Congressionally-sponsored campaign. The rogue operation did NOT materially impact the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace of November 1782, as Native Americans were not consulted, nor were the Indian Agents of either Britain or America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- One can only wonder how effective a British blockade would have been if they were not allowed to engage the Americans after the ceasefire. Then, otoh, perhaps they were there to keep them pesky ol' Frenchmen from coming in. During this time Washington also issue a similar ceasefire for his troops. Did it allow for exceptions, which might explain some of the following battles? That's another area that seems a bit sketchy, at least for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Surrender at Yorktown, ceasefire and Articles of Capitulation
Notes and sources to consider:
- Surrender at Yorktown: Articles of Captitulation (14 Articles)
- General Washington agreed to all of the Articles of Capitulation, the British terms of surrender, except the 10th, which asked that all Americans who fought with the British at Yorktown be pardoned. October 19, 1781, Yorktown, Virginia. < Ancestry.com >
- The Articles of Capitulation outlined the British terms of surrender. These articles were the precursor to the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the American Revolution in 1783. October 19, 1781, Yorktown, Virginia. Credit: Continental Congress-Papers Vol.10 Pg.305/Fold3 < Ancestry.com >
- Thacher, James (1827). A military journal of the American Revolution. Boston, Cottons & Barnard. See search: Articles of capitulation
- Johnston, Henry P. (1881). The Yorktown Campaign and the surrender of Cornwallis, 1781. New York, Harper & Brothers.
- Patton, Jacob Harris (1882). Yorktown: a compendious account of the campaign of the allied French and American forces, resulting in the surrender of Cornwallis and the close of the American revolution;. New York, Fords, Howard, & Hulbert.
Johnston's work covers the surrender very well, which also includes extracts from Washington's Journal covering the siege (p.166), correspondence between Washington and Cornwallis, Cornwallis' report of the Surrender (p.181), and the first hand accounts from the various officers present. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that the ceasefire didn't take effect until after February 4, 1783. In addition news would take a good month or more to get to the Americas. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the battles you mentioned before (on the Anglo-French (1778-1783) Talk page all occurred before that date:
- Battle of Blue Licks, Aug. 19, 1782
- Battle of the Delaware Capes, Dec. 20, 1782
- Action of 12 December 1782
- Action of 15 September 1782
- Even though it's more than inferred, The Articles of Capitulation don't specifically refer to any ceasefire. Both Washington and Cornwallis, however, ordered a ceasefire to their troops. 'Odd that it didn't take effect until well over a year later'. (?) Evidently that ceasefire only pertained to the immediate Yorktown campaign area, which I would assume would have taken effect immediately -- it would have been sort of pointless if it didn't. How else could the Articles of Capitulation, signed October 19, 1781, gone into effect? Where are you getting February 4, 1783 from? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the battles you mentioned before (on the Anglo-French (1778-1783) Talk page all occurred before that date:
- After Yorktown October 1781, both France and Spain delayed joining the Americans in peace negotiations with the British to secure American independence. Anglo-American cease-fire, armistice, and signed Preliminary Peace November 1782. In the meantime, France and Spain mounted joint offensives in early and late 1782 to take Jamaica, where Britain decisively defeated French at sea (Saintes), and then to take Gibraltar at their "Great (Final) Assault".
- - In January 1783 preliminary negotiations opened among Britain and the two Bourbon empires. The Spanish then could honorably lift its Great Siege of Gibraltar. After Anglo-American ceasefire, armistice and then Preliminary Peace was signed November 1782, February 4, 1783 is the Anglo-French-Spanish formal Paris ceasefire for their separate "War of 1778". The Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris was signed on 2 September 1783 in Paris, but it was not to take effect until the separate conclusive peace treaties between Britain with France and with Spain signed on 3 September 1783 in Versailles.
- - That sourced "War of 1788" is separate and apart from the "War of American Revolution" as found at Mahan 1890, p. 372, referred to in our mutually agreed-to wp:reliable source among four wp:editors here and at Anglo-French War (1778). - All in wp:good faith, to the best of my knowledge. Sorry, it's been 60 years since I read Mahan, 1890. - - - My takeaway previously had been the US Navy training motto, "We sweat in peace so you don't bleed in war." - - - last night I reread a few sections related to American Revolution, Chap.XII West India naval operations AFTER Yorktown in the "War of 1778", and Chap.XIII East India naval operations AFTER Yorktown in the "War of 1778" ...
"The principal parties to the War of 1778 were, on the one hand, Great Britain; on the other, the House of Bourbon, controlling the two great kingdoms of France and Spain."
[Mahan 1890, p.507] I hope to post a more thorough presentation of Mahan's war distinctions and terminology later, early tomorrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- February 4, 1783 is the date that King George III declares a permanent ceasefire to the American Revolution - meaning that was everywhere round the globe including America. 'How else could the Articles of Capitulation, signed October 19, 1781, gone into effect?' That is merely a local ceasefire. Again don't get confused with a local ceasefire or truce than an official ceasefire (Feb 4 1783). Also check the infobox dates - April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 (8 years, 4 months and 15 days). Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't term it quite so loosely. King George ordered a ceasefire to all the fighting, between belligerents fighting over American independence, and between France, Spain and Britain who were fighting for their own specific objectives. Once again, there is a distinct difference between those battles, most of which didn't occur until after Yorktown when finally Britain realized that the war over independence was over, and she was now free to commit resources to other campaigns involving completely different objectives. As said above, "that ceasefire only pertained to the immediate Yorktown campaign area", and as TVH pointed out, "February 4, 1783 is the Anglo-French-Spanish formal Paris ceasefire for their separate "War of 1778". The Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris was signed on 2 September 1783 in Paris, but it was not to take effect until the separate conclusive peace treaties between Britain with France and with Spain signed on 3 September 1783 in Versailles. i.e.Treaty of Paris. In any case, our treatment of the ceasefire, treaties, etc, should be covered nominally, as we have dedicated articles for these topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- The "War of American Revolution" (Mahan) ends formally as a shooting war 30 November 1782 at Article 7. of the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace. The George III 14 February 1783 Cessation of Hostilities does not abrogate it, it comprehensively EXTENDS the cessation of hostilities to both France and Spain with Preliminary Peace agreements, AND to the United Provinces without yet a Preliminary Peace.
- Anglo-American Preliminary Treaty 30 November 1782.
Article 7th. There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said States,
and between the subjects of the one, and the citizens of the other,wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall then immediately cease;
… we the United States in Congress assembled, have ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do ratify and confirm, the said articles, and every part, article and clause thereof… ”[1] - - George III Proclamation of Cessation of Arms 14 February 1783.
“Cessation of Arms, as well by sea as land, agreed upon by [King of England, of France, of Spain, Dutch Republic and the United States]
,“Whereas Provisional Articles were signed at Paris… [30 November 1782 for the United States]
, [20 January 1783 for France, 20 January 1783 for Spain, and unnamed for the United Provinces], …and whereas, for putting an end to the calamity of war as soon as may be possible, as agreed to by [Britain, France, Spain United Provinces and United States] as follows;"[2] - -
“whereas ratification of the said Preliminary Articles …were exchanged between [Britain and France]
on 3 February, and between [Britain and Spain] on 9 February…and [George III wants that all] Cessation of Hostilities should be agreeable to the epochs between [George III] and [Louis XVI], from and after the respective times above-mentioned”.[3] George III does not here renounce the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace of 30 November 1782. - - The rationale for the 14 February Proclamation for others, in addition to the Anglo-American peace and cessation of hostilities, “by land and sea, for all British subjects and American citizens”, was that peace “contained no provision for implementing, throughout the world”.[4] A like cessation of hostilities was required between Britain and France, Spain in their War of 1788,Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page).
- ^ Congressional Proclamation, 1783, Cessation of Arms 15 April 1783
- ^ George III Prolamation, 1783, Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783
- ^ George III Prolamation, 1783, Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783
- ^ George III Prolamation, 1783, Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783, Note 2.
- - - Congress of the United States. "Proclamation of Cessation of Arms" (1783) [document]. Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, Series: American Memory, ID: 90898287. Washington DC: Library of Congress. 7 September 2929.
- - - George III. "Proclamation of the Cessation of Hostilities, 14 February 1783". Founders Online. National Archives. Retrieved 7 September 2020.
- - - Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. Boston : Little, Brown and Company.
- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent, glad we're all in agreement. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's easy to see how some historians can lump all the battles under one heading. After all, Britain and France were always arch enemies, esp during the ARW, and after Yorktown, these same two enemies went sailing off to fight the Anglo-French wars involving their various possessions, which they have always been involved with throughout the 18th century. If some people want to loosely refer to these battles as "part of" the ARW it's no big deal - so long - as the distinction is made in the narrative and in any given info-box, that these were different battles fought elsewhere for different objectives, regardless if a couple of these battles were mentioned later in peace talks between Britain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent, glad we're all in agreement. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Mercenaries v Auxiliaries
In the markup for the info-box there's a hidden note that reads: Consensus agrees mercenaries is unnecessary; see Talk. Can someone point to where this consensus was established. When I checked Talk archives I found a discussion where there was overwhelming consensus against using the misleading term Auxiliaries. That discussion can be found here. I'm just curious – at when point did the consensus get completely turned around? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on French Revolution
As the BritClique is now in the process of censoring the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution, it would seem appropriate to inform editors of this page that a discussion is currently going on here. Please contribute. 021120x (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)