Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)

Editors interpret Stoker et al, eds. (2009)

@Eastfarthingan: Above, from Stoker et al, editors, you misattributed a quote from John Reeve in Chapter 4: “British naval strategy, War on a global scale”. You begin with wp:cherry picking: “It was naval strategy that made the American War of Independence a global conflict.” But read beyond your browser-search snippet into the same first paragraph. “A better name for the so-called American War would be the Atlantic War of 1775.” You wp:error, would put the “Bourbon War of 1778” (Mahan) --- the “Anglo-French War together with the Anglo-Spanish War” --- into, and topically under, an unsourced, timeline-coincident, --- yes 1778-1783 is “during” 1775-1783 --- sort-of “bourgeois-nationalist American Revolution spread worldwide” (Shaw 1952). But so far this year, we have nothing but your misplaced assertions, NOTHING YOU LINK shows any document evidence to connect the ARW with the Euro great power imperial struggle carried out globally at sea.

On-the-other-hand, all YOUR linked RS do have it the other way around: the eight contributors to Stoker’s book associated with the US Naval War College, along with Briton Piers Mackesy, and Smithsonian's Allison & Ferreiro and Mahan 1890 “Influence of Seapower”: the worldwide naval war conducted against Britain IS NOT the British colonial rebellion on the North American continent among British subjects for American independence. The warfare at sea is “one further round in the Anglo-French struggle which largely defined the ‘long 18th century’ from 1689-1815.” (Reeve in Stoker 2009, also see Second Hundred Years' War). NOTE: Stoker 2009 is published by British scholarly wp:reliable source ROUTLEDGE, whose Dictionary of Warfare describes the ARW: from 1775 skirmishing, and “the Continental Congress issued its Declaration of Independence,” to finally, “surrounded at Yorktown … Cornwallis surrendered … most of the fighting ceased (see British-Indian raids of 1782).” --- THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT the ARW perpetrating the French-Spanish GLOBAL NAVAL WAR AGAINST BRITAIN, you see.

“This so-called ‘American’ war involved the naval forces of [by the numbers first Britain, then France, Spain, Dutch, Russia, . . . and lastly the fledgling US, mostly off-shore ‘state navies’ and ‘raiding privateers’ deprecated by Mahan as "ineffectual" – they increased insurance rates for merchants sailing without an escort in a convoy, without sinking enemy warships. But as of 1780, all merchants did convoy in the First League of Armed Neutrality, the Russians, Austrians, Prussians, Swedes, Ottoman Empire Turks, Portuguese and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

From the beginning, the principal participants saw it as a global struggle. All understood that "perceptions of North America, including its maritime resources, [were] the keystone of the British Empire." Thus Britain was concerned with its colonial revolt there, and France saw their conflict as an opening for “French designs against British power”. CONGRESS IS NOT MENTIONED AS A PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANT in the naval warfare of global conflict against Britain . . . you know, the Second Hundred Years' War, mentioned in Allison & Ferreiro, that I’ve refrenced in posts at least once a week over the past six months, ever since Lord Cornwallis presented wp:editors with a bibliography I took as a reading list on this topic. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT the ARW perpetrating the French-Spanish GLOBAL NAVAL WAR AGAINST BRITAIN, you see but this is your own opinion and so far a consesus has not been made to force the DUE WEIGHT. We now have 4:4 merge/non merge proposal. I have quoted the above which is enough to satisfy the readers this this article should merge with France in the American Revolutionary War. We also have the article Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War which could easily fill both said article too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

EASTFARTHINGAN HAS "QUOTED THE ABOVE which is enough to satisfy the editors here at Talk THAT THIS ARTICLE SHOULD MERGE WITH France in the American Revolution. Well, three editors have initially voted Merge before 'informed consent' of your wp:deprecated "browser-search-snippet" research methodology, where you read a five-word phrase search-term result, WITHOUT THE CONTEXT of the first paragraph where it is embedded, as found at YOUR linked source.

The article Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War is a delightful and informative essay on a conflated topic of fringe historiography that is not supported by the references cited in the Bibliography there. To begin, Mahan in 1890 Influence of Seapower makes a clear distinction in early chapters relative to the naval engagements directly related to American Independence under Continental Army or Navy command or coordination.

Those are clearly marked out and separated from those sea-battles such as the Battle of the Saintes of the "Bourbon War of 1778", directly related to British-Bourbon imperial rivalry worldwide, and without the knowledge or consent of Congress. Saintes and other such naval engagements are referred to in each subsequent Mahan chapter, such as West Indies, after Yorktown, all titled with the modifier, "after Yorktown", a documented specific historical event that Mahan interprets as ending significant conflict in the American Revolutionary War, both on land and at sea. - Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There are three articles already concerning this - France in the American Revolutionary War and Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War and the Anglo-French War (1778-83) let alone the American Revolutionary war. One will need to merge into another at some point. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at another item from the Eastfarthingan List. This time again from the wp:article France in the American Revolutionary War. We accept Mahan as an RS, he does NOT see the Saintes and Gibraltar 'after Yorktown' as a part of the American Revolutionary War. From the same article a second source is compelling. We have archived with ‘Full view’ at Hathi Trust Digital Library, James Breck Perkins, France in the American Revolution, 1911, p.511: In April, 1779, the convention between France and Spain [[[Treaty of Aranajuez (1779)|Treaty of Aranjuez]]], was at last signed. “Though the United States had not gained a new ally, the English had another enemy.”

And, at Perkins 1911, p. 319: "Spain was NOT indeed an ally of the United States [in a war to gain American independence], but she was an ally of France, and engaged with [France] in war with England." That is, Spain as an ally of France without the Americans, engaged "with [France] in war with [Britain]", and that was RS-distinguished from, and NOT included in the ARW, a war in which Congress and France made war on Britain for American independence. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Mahan does NOT see the Saintes and Gibraltar 'after Yorktown' as a part of the American Revolutionary War. WRONG - perhaps you should check The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American Independenceby Mahan - page 226 - The defeat of De Grasse partial though it was, the abandonment of the enterprise on Jamaica; the failure of the attack upon Gibraltar and the success of Howe in re victualling that fortress- these had taken all heart out of the French and Spaniards; while the numerical superiority of the allies ineffectively though it had been used heretofore, weighed heavily upon the imagination of the British government which now had abandoned all hope of subduing its American colonies.. He does not even mention a Bourbon War or Anglo-French war 1778 or even war off 1778. Please stop using your own interpretations and stick to the facts.

As for Perkins 1911, one should look at pages 397-398 in which the Battle of the Saintes gets a good mention and Gibraltar too - note on page 518 -with regards to Gibraltar in the peace talks - there was no reason that the people of the United States should sacrifice one cod on the Newfoundland banks or one acre of land in the Western Reserve to obtain Gibraltar for Spain. It was fitting that this fortress should remain the possession of a power that was able to protect it and certainly its ownership by England could America no harm. What's more the book again makes no mention of a so called Anglo-French War 1778. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

On what page does this source explain how Gibraltar factored into the fight for American independence? We know Gibraltar was part of the peace talks in the settlements between Britain and France, but how was it involved in the American Revolutionary WAR? We all know it wasn't. This is where the passing references you resort to always fall short. There are no facts involved with Gibraltar, or Saintes, that give them enough weight to be referring to them as part of the ARW, with no reference to any other involvements, including their main involvements. The generic and passing references have always been academic. Once again, there are two distinct sets of battles - ones fought over American independence, and ones fought between Britain and France involving their possessions, involving no American belligerents. This is why we have dedicated articles for each group of battles. You have offered no reason why all these distinctly different battles should be lumped into one article. We've been through this many times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The pages are clear - for Gibraltar and to answer your question it clearly states - here France in the American Revolution by James Breck Perkins (1911), page 518 Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The page you linked to (319) doesn't even mention Saintes or Gibraltar. Gibraltar is covered in terms of the peace talks between Spain, France and Britain, and as usual, that's it. Gibraltar, and Saintes, in reality were part of the peace talks, not part of the actual American Revolutionary War. The info-box should read peripherally part of, and even that is stretching it a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the reply properly. I said page 518. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

No it does not. Here follows a definitive refutation of the wp:cherry picking search snippet thrown up here out of context for your PERKINS page reference. It might help were to slow down just a bit to read what you just quoted from Mahan and Perkins. Perhaps a couple pages before, and a couple pages after, as good history students always do. Spain, in wp:terms was merely a co-belligerent of the US coincidentally warring against Britain AT THE SAME TIME--“during”--the ARW time-period for different objectives. Losing an army to the Continental Army at Yorktown in the American War for Independence did NOT dictate British cession of Gibraltar in the British-Bourbon War of 1788 (Mahan).

- The American War for Independence had NOTHING TO DO WITH GIBRALTAR: Unlike Spain’s Bourbon Family Pact and Treaty of Aranjuez where FRANCE would war with Britain until Spain achieved possession of Gibraltar, PERKINS QUOTE: “In other words, SPAIN WOULD NOT PROMISE ANY AID TO THE UNITED STATES; she would NOT WAGE WAR TO IN SURE THEIR INDEPENDENCE, and to that decision she religiously adhered.” [p. 510] --- France in the American Revolutionary War did not commit the US to fight until Spain gained Gibraltar. PERKINS QUOTE: “Spain had no claims on the United States; SHE HAD WISHED ILL TO THE CAUSE OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE and had done nothing to further it.“ In the peace proposals circulated among internationally credentialed diplomats in Paris, formally, informally, and by one another’s spies, PERKINS QUOTE: “there was no reason that the people of the United States should sacrifice one cod on the Newfoundland Banks or one acre of land in the Western Reserve to obtain Gibraltar for Spain.” [p. 518]

- Spain had demanded that Britain cede the US state of Georgia to its empire in Britain’s “American settlement”. TURN THE PAGE, French minister of Foreign Affairs Vergennes wrote to Rayneval, French minister to the United States, PERKINS QUOTING VERGENNES: that Louis XVI seeking peace with Britain was “a virtue and not a weakness. They [the Spanish] are mistaken in England if they believe it is only necessary to inflate their demands in order to obtain them”. But if Carlos III, the very Catholic King, were to be determined to fight on for Gibraltar, PERKINS QUOTING VERGENNES: “if it is necessary to prolong the calamities of war, his Majesty [Louis XVI, the very Christian King], will submit with resignation.” [p.519]

- In January 1783, the victorious British at Gibraltar did not cave at the negotiation table with Spain in their “British-Bourbon War of 1778”. They DID NOT take back their separate peace with the Americans from November 1782 for independence ceding land to the Mississippi. But surprise, when Britain countered with cession of Florida and Minorca, Carlos III accepted the offer! PERKINS QUOTE: “Even now it is difficult to see what led to this change of hears.” [p.520] “Vergennes was filled with joy that France had saved for herself the valuable islands which she had been ready to sacrifice [to satisfy her ally Spain]”, the Caribbean islands of Sante-Lucie and la Trinite. PERKINS QUOTING SHELBURNE: “There was now no obstacle to an agreement”, and Shelburne wrote that on 20 January 1783, ”the preliminaries between France and Spain were signed”. [p. 521] Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor interpretations of Allison and Bemis quotes

I am not in contest with you in regards to Spain as being merely a co-belligerent of the US and warring against Britain. There is no coincidence in that at all. Also why do you keep quoting The Bourbon War of 1788 this war doesn't exist.

The American War for Independence had NOTHING TO DO WITH GIBRALTAR why not try telling telling David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro that in their book, 'The American Revolution: A World War' as I have said previously but happy to remind you.

• Allison, David K; Ferreiro, Larrie D, eds. (2018). The American Revolution: A World War. Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 9781588346599. Quote critical event in the war outside America was a contemporaneous European siege that was bigger, lasted longer, and ultimately was as critical to establishing peace as the Yorktown victory - Page 220. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bemis, Samuel Flagg (2012). The Diplomacy of the American Revolution. Read Books Ltd. ISBN 9781447485155. Quote - That tremendous citadel thus became a vital factor in the diplomacy of the American Revolution Page 77.

As you can see the evidence is staring at you in the face and in both cases and neither mention the War of 1778 either. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Spain can be a US co-belligerent against Britain BECAUSE the Bourbon War declared on Britain to expand the French and Spanish empire IS COINCIDENT with the ARW. --- As YOUR source PERKINS QUOTE: “Spain would NOT provide to the US, she would NOT wage war to insure their independence … she had WISHED ILL TO THE CAUSE of American independence.” --- of course you cannot contest the fact that the “American-War-of-INDEPENDENCE” has nothing to do with Spain gaining Gibraltar. – TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Spain took advantage of the French declaration of war and the Bourbon compact just as it was in 1762. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You just made that up. The Third Bourbon Family Pact established an offensive and defensive military alliance. It did NOT specify France and Spain should war until Spain acquired Gibraltar. The Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) DID SO SPECIFY, as all our mutally-agreed-to-RS explain; I think I linked to the treaty text for you to read earlier, I can do so again at your request. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No it is fact - both France and Spain wanted territory that the two had lost in the Seven Years' War - in effect it was a renewal of the third Pacte de Famille from that same war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"American War" with (#1) Paris treaty or a second "Bourbon War" with (#2) Versailles treaties

YOUR source ALLISON QUOTE refers to: “the war outside of America” by the Spanish and French against Britain, just as our mutually agreed-to RS Mahan describes it "after Yorktown", an YOUR Clodfelter titles sections on his "WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION", as "Overseas" after Yorktown. Note Clodfelter does NOT use the term, 'AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR' to encompass imperial conflict by France and Spain against Britain, ELSEWHERE apart from, and for purposes OTHER THAN American independence in North America. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

They all agree however that peace talks ended the war NOT wars. Gibraltar for example is as is said critical to peace talks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Each one of the two separate war is treated SINGULARLY in our mutually-agreed-to RS. The British war (singular) with Congress has A PRELIMINARY PEACE agreed to 20 November 1782, and IS finalized at the TREATY of PARIS. The British war (singular) with the Bourbons-France-Spain has a PRELIMINARY PEACE agreed to 20 January 1783, and IS finalized at each BOURBON TREATY of VERSAILLES. The four treaties between Britain and first Congress, then France, then Spain, then the Dutch Republic, ending THREE (3) wars are taken together historiographically by our mutually-agreed-to-RS as ONE (1) abstract construct of FOUR (4) documents as evidence ending three wars: Historian's category, "The Pease of Paris" thus encompasses all FIVE (5) belligerents, 1775-1784. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - historians have always viewed it as the Peace of Paris - do you see wiki pages dedicated to the Anglo-French peace of 1783 for example? As it is a global war it is all put into one peace at Paris. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unlike historian jargon, the signed documents to end the Anglo-Bourbon "War of 1778" as Alfred Mahan (1890), our mutually-agreed-to-RS names it, were the two separate British "Treaty of Versailles", one for each Bourbon, the Most Christian King, and the Most Catholic King, as they called themselves there. As I say, the historiographic term "Peace of Paris" for three wars among four belligerents is an artificial catch-all category for the short-cut convenience of scholars talking among one another. There is no one signed document for a "Peace of Paris" extant.

Wikipedia does not yet have a standardized naming convention for the conflicts and diplomacy of this period. Although we do not use Wikipedia as an authority for Wikipedia, the four physical documents of historical evidence are described at Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783) Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles (1783), at Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783), and [[Peace of Paris#Treaty with the Dutch Republic|Anglo-Dutch Treaty of Paris (1784). --- There are specifically eight diplomatic documents of historical interest that bear on this discussion: (1, 2) Anglo-American Preliminary Peace November 1782, conclusive peace September 1782; (3, 4) the Anglo-French Preliminary Peace January 1783, conclusive peace September 1783, (5, 6) the Anglo-Spanish Preliminary Peace January 1783, conclusive peace September 1783; and (7, 8)) the Anglo-Dutch Preliminary Peace September 1783, conclusive peace May 1784.

In a way, there are four physical treaties of document evidence to end four separate wars. There is NO one treaty for one war extant for scholars to examine; our mutually-agreed-to-RS to NOT support your wp:POV assertions, they mostly just say, as shown here by citations, source links, and direct quotes, that the time periods of the three or four wars overlap as shooting wars for two years in North America, the Caribbean, and the North Atlantic. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Is war without Congress "the (one) American War" with Britain?

- IT IS TRUE that Gibraltar took place AFTER the British-Congressional shooting war had ended and peace negotiations were nearly completed without France or Spain, BUT as YOUR source PERKINS notes, “CONTEMPORANEOUS” to British-French-Spanish negotiations. GIBRALTAR “was as critical to establishing peace”, NOT with the Americans, but with the French and Spanish AFTER they delayed negotiations from October 1781 to await the results of their (1) second invasion attempt of Britain, (2) first joint invasion attempt on Jamaica, and (3) the Final (Great) Assault on Gibraltar. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not true the naval war continued - the Royal Navy at the same time as the Saintes and Gibraltar assault is taking place in 1782 is conducting a crippling blockade of American Atlantic coast. The shooting war is still going on. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The British blockade of the Atlantic coast is directed against Americans providing "neutral" naval bases and naval stores to the French as the Dutch had American John Paul Jones and others. The British feared French either ranging north into British operations based in the Maritimes, or to resupply the French Navy from Savannah and Charleston against Bermuda (conquered once by the Spanish), Bahamas, or into the Caribbean. No British-French isolated warship duel off Spain related to resupply of Gibraltar, or capturing diplomatic dispatches related to upcoming Versailles treaties without Congressional knowledge or approval, is part of the American War for Independence from Britain on the North American continent.

The naval actions in international waters with American-flagged vessels among a convoy of French warships during a time of British-Bourbon "War of 1778" (Mahan), is NOT an engagement between the armed forces of Britain and Congress after their Yorktown truce and their New York City truce.

An independently commanded South Carolina raider that had captured ten British merchantmen WAS NOT the "armed forces of the United States". It had not engaged any British warships, and not paid for itself by the end of the American Revolution shooting war between Britain and Congress in October 1781 --- in part due to the rent paid from prize money to a French-Dutch prince. The Dutch captain with a foreign crew tried to break out of the British blockade to continue raiding British merchantmen. ---- likewise, NO Continental regiments join in the Bourbon-only-war in the Bourbon-only Great (Final) Assault on British Gibraltar, after the unanimous Act of Congress on 15 April 1783, that no United States citizen would make war on any subject of Britain or its trade, on land or at sea. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is your own opinion trying to deflect from the obvious. The Royal Navy were blockading off American coast such as Philadelphia so I don't see how that is a 'neutral base' nor is it in 'international waters' which is term that dosen't exists at the time. Also this is your own opinion which is totally made up. Bermuda was NOT conquered by the Spanish. Once more there is no ceasefire in America only an end to offensive operations. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant wp:beating a dead horse. I've corrected myself, there is a North American TRUCE at Yorktown between Washington and Cornwallis, and at New York between Washington and Clinton, backed up by Congressional action responding to the Preliminary Peace, culminating in its ratification 15 April 1782 BEFORE news of the Battle of the Saintes British victory. It was Spanish conquering Bahamas due east of Cuba, not Bermuda, Thank you; you have no answer for that.

The French continue fighting the British because the Spanish insist, they do not fight for American independence AFTER Yorktown October 1781 "ends significant fighting" in the American Revolution over US independence, and they fight REGARDLESS of the pending American independence. After October 1781, THE FRENCH FIGHT FOR SPAIN until AFTER the Franco-Spanish second invasion attempt on England, AFTER their joint invasion of Jamaica attempt, and AFTER their "Great (Final) Assault on Gibraltar" October 1782.

In any case, that's not my opinion, Britain DOES NOT RENEGE on American independence after their victories over the French at sea or over the Spanish on land. It's a "done deal" for the Americans, then Britain finishes off Spain, they cave, and the French are released from their "foolish" commitment at their diplomacy in the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), as our mutually-agree-to-RS say. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Does a "war" continue without shooting, and all terms agreed?

- YOUR source BEMIS is correct, the Bourbon family tie from France to Spain stopped France from making a British peace in-conjunction-with the Americans, beginning with the George III promise to Lord Rockingham for American independence April 1782 before Rockingham would agree to accept the Prime Ministership. Spain awaited the Final (Great) Assault on Gibraltar PRIOR TO THEIR British peace for the Anglo-“Bourbon War”, the “War of 1788” as our mutually agreed-to RS Mahan terms it interchangeably. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Peace had not been made - these are the preliminaries which DOES NOT MEAN an end to the war. A treaty is signed to do that. Again.... what is the 'war of 1788'? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

YOUR PERSONAL INTEREST IN diplomatic history is intriguing, but it CANNOT be allowed to be determinative for the focus in a article dedicated to a military operations. Such considerations related to peace negotiations dragging on and on, and royal court intrigues among conflicting parties unaligned with their foreign counterparts on any side, all belong in an AFTERMATH section of a military history article, as several of our mutually-agreed-to-RS organize their chapters. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Diplomacy is always a factor with wars however they can be used as a factor in the war article itself - espeically when battles such as Saintes and Gibraltar were so vital in influencing the end of the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The two British victories were 'vital' to drive French and Spanish to separate Versailles peace for their separate war apart from the American War for Independence. The Americans were ready for peace immediately after Yorktown October 1781.

Saintes concluded 12 April 1782, about the same time George III promised American independence to Lord Rockingham BEFORE Rockingham would accept the Prime Ministership. Shelburne had all but inked the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace before the Bourbon Great (Final) Assault on Gibraltar kicked off.

The British victories did NOT lead them to renege on their promise of American independence and their evacuation from eastern coastal ports, ceding territory to the Mississippi and navigation on it, and granting fishing rights at Newfoundland. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Is a privateer violating Congressional law an "American warship"?

- Thus Gibraltar became, BEMIS QUOTE: “a vital factor in the diplomacy of the American revolution” BECAUSE the Spanish were stubborn to gain it and the French were foolish to accede to the Spanish determination, PERKINS QUOTING VERGENNES: “to submit with resignation”. THEREFORE with that Spanish-French delay, and the Americans anxious to end a war they could not afford to finance any further, THE BRITISH were able to break apart the Franco-American peace negotiation links by treaty and Congressional directives to the American peace delegation in Paris. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly as the war hadn't ended in America - not until 1783. British ships were still taking American warships such as at Action of 12 December 1782. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

What ? The peace negotiations Between Britain and Congress did NOT BEGIN "APART" from Franco-American diplomatic links "UNTIL 1783" with the Anglo-American 'conclusive peace'. The American diplomats BROKE AWAY FROM THE FRENCH and began treating directly with British envoys soon after Lord Rockingham ascended to the Prime Ministership with his George III promise mid-April 1782 for American independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Peace negotiations were going on until the conclusive peace. That pretty much says it all. There is no argument, also don't forget that news of the final peace takes up to three months to reach all around the globe. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish, and Anglo Dutch negotiations were ongoing until THEIR conclusive peace in three pieces, two in September 1783 and one in May 1784. The negotiations ended between Britain and Congress at its unanimous ratification of the British Preliminary Peace 15 April 1783, which granted all American war aims: independence and evacuation of eastern ports, cession of land west to the Mississippi River and its navigation, and Newfoundland fishing rights. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Do British historic and decisive victories on land and at sea lead it to lose the First British Empire?

- PERKINS and BEMIS do not state or imply that the British victory at Gibraltar was determinative in losing thirteen colonies, granting American independence, evacuating seaboard America, ceding territory to the Mississippi and navigation on it, and granting Newfoundland fishing rights. Gibraltar win for Britain did not cause any British loss at the peace table. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No the opposite happened the British victories of 1782 accelerated American Independence so that the British could end the war in a successful and honourable conclusion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just some basic reminders. Winning American independence and gaining vast amounts of territory did not hinge on the outcome of Gibraltar, which had zero impact on the fighting over independence. Since most of the sources on the ARW don't mention events like Gibraltar, or Saintes, and the few that do only mention these evens in a passing academic capacity, any coverage would thus occur in the same proportion as occurs in the sources on the ARW, which, once again, would be next to no coverage. Time and again it has been asked 'how' was Gibraltar, or Saintes, involved in the WAR over American independence, and every time no definitive response is offered. Many thanks to TVH for outlining the finer points of these and other matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

--- "did not hinge on the outcome of Gibraltar". That isn't in question here and you know it. Gibraltar's fate decided the end of the war - and that is what matters most. As you need to be reminded the American Revolutionary war lasted from April 19, 1775 to September 3, 1783 (8 years, 4 months and 15 days). Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For a "DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS HISTORY OF BRITISH WARS, 1750-1800", you will want to compare "apples-to-apples". The American Revolutionary War formally by document estimation lasted from (a) the United States Declaration of Independence July 1776, to (b) September 1783, at the conclusive Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783), without any negotiation nor signatories by either France or Spain.

For another 'war' chapter, in an as-yet-to-be-titled-war, a narrative will unfold about the conflict between Britain and the Bourbon kings who (a) had declared war on Britain, with explicit, enumerated war aims defined in their Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), until (b) their conclusive pair of Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles in 1783.

Gibraltar's defeat caused the Spanish to cave (and NOT the Americans, the Americans did NOT cave at the British victory in another war). Spain surprised everyone and accepted the British offer of Minorca and Florida cession to Spain to end that war, if Britain could keep Gibraltar, and France was relieved she would not have to give up her Caribbean islands of Sante-Lucie and la Trinite for Britain to give up Gibraltar to Spain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes these are the facts we know - the war ended with the Peace of Paris ending the WAR with all parties. Of course treaties are made with the said countries as they are separate entities. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, treaties would have been made with the separate countries as America had all the bargaining chips she needed, regardless of Gibraltar. The decision over Gibraltar's fate was just one cog in a huge wheel. If that campaign had never occurred other settlements would have naturally been made, and indeed were made between America and Britain, without the consent of France or Spain. Being part of the peace talks isn't the same thing as being a part of the war. "Apples and oranges" indeed. Once again, Britain was hardly in a position to resume the war on the American continent, esp with France and Spain still eager to carry on the conflict with Britain, whose interests were scattered all over the map and still vulnerable.
If Britain still had a chance to win the war she would have continued in that war effort after Yorktown. To her credit, she was wise enough to know better. Meanwhile we still have two sets of battles, fought for two distinctly sets of reasons, which is why we have had two dedicated articles for each. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re talking in ‘what if’ terms, and exactly Gibraltar was a cog in a big wheel of the American Revolutionary war. Britain wanted to end the war on favourable terms even if it meant losing American colonies, diplomacy and British victories and such as at Gibraltar and the Saintes ended the war this way. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan persists in dismissing the historic role of a representative legislature such as Parliament in government and its diplomacy. Lords Rockingham and Shelburne were constant supporters of the American cause for independence. The unpopularity throughout Britain for fighting the insurrection in North America made it difficult for George III Tory Administration to fill the (a) regimental ranks, (b) officer corps, and (c) field commands in America from among the half-pay British generals and admirals on the rolls. The Scots would not enlist, George III appealed unsuccessfully to the Dutch Republic for their Scots Regiment. Hence the King's reliance on HRE German troops by "treaties of subsidy" for manpower to maintain American occupation in the face of the independence Congress resistance in the American Revolutionary War.

- THERE WAS NO MAJORITY in Parliament to end the British fighting IN AMERICA, until the SECOND CONFLICT with the Bourbons immediately threatened England with invasion launched in 1779. This SECOND conflict, which was born of the Bourbon Family Pact between France and Spain and the Aranjuez Treaty for a Spanish Gibraltar, is known by Mahan as the "Bourbon War of 1778", and Clodfelter as the global "War of the American Revolution", styled after a similar inclusive-global-conflict historiographic name, "War of the Austrian Succession". After the American-war Prime Minister Lord North lost his SECOND BRITISH ARMY in America, the independent "Country Gentlemen" in the House of Commons bolted from the Tory coalition, the North Administration fell before only the second "no confidence" vote in Parliament's history, and the patriotic Lords-of-the-Manor flock to officer both regular regiments and local county 'home defense' militias. The regular enlisted ranks are filled.

- The British Prime Minister making the Anglo-American Peace of Paris was Lord SHELBURNE, a constant friend of American independence publicly on the floor of the House of Lords from 1775. The IMAGINARY DIPLOMATIC FAKE that editors may advance for their unsupported wp:POV seems to be based more on an ideology dismissing the idea of democratic representative government as much as anything. The Whig administration wanted both American independence in America, AND EQUALLY to defeat the Bourbons globally. There was no forced "horns of a dilemma", to either (a) keep North American colonies - OR to (b) lose empire elsewhere to Bourbons. The Whigs were able to both keep their cake (launch a bigger Second British Empire) and eat it too (American independence on Whig political principles). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Did 'Britain end the war' with Congress, 'then start another one'?

Britain fought two shooting wars overlapping two years; Britain ended separate wars by separate treaties between Britain and their separate-belligerent wars, (a) one before Yorktown, (b) one after Yorktown. That is my point confirmed in our mutually-agreed-to-RS, Alfred Mahan (1890), as referenced, linked, and directly quoted in this thread. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your views make it sound like you're saying that Britain ended the war with America and then started another one. Not true. The conflict in India, Caribbean, even British home waters took place well before Yorktown. Britain had a war to finish which was now a global one.

• Page, Anthony (2014). Britain and the Seventy Years War, 1744-1815: Enlightenment, Revolution and Empire. Macmillan International Higher Education,. ISBN 9781137474438.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Quote aside from some lamentation, Britons were not traumatised by the loss of America. In addition to the fact that cultural and economic ties soon revived this owes something to the fact that Britain effectively won the last year of the global war. With the Americans split from their allies peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783 - page 39. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That quote is exactly as I say, so why would you post "Not true" to the contrary? YOUR quoted RS: "The loss of American" war #1 a rebellion declared on Britain July 4, 1776, lost, done and dusted. One can fairly say, "a done deal" as of the GEORGE III April 1782 promise to Lord Rockingham for American independence before Rockingham became Prime Minister.

The shooting-war between N.Am. colonists and Britain lasted June 1775-October 1781; the formal conflict was 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence to 3 September 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris. THEN, "overseas" from America (Clodfelter 2017), "after Yorktown" (Mahan 1890), war #2, "Britain effectively won the last year of the global war", a war declared by France and Spain tied by the Bourbon Family Pact for the Aranjuez Treaty war aims, won, done and done.

And yes, previous British-Bourbon conflict "well before Yorktown" and prior to 1775 without any document connection for-or-against American independence, is encompassed in the historiography of the 1689-1815 Second Hundred Years' War. Not chronologically backwards and logically upside-down as you wp:POV assert without wp:reliable sources. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The second Hundred Years war included all wars not just with the American Revolutionary war. That ‘war’ is a whole period from the late 17th century to the early 19th century. Let's stick to this period only. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the point, the only thing TO CONNECT the American Revolutionary War formally 1776-1783, shooting-war 1775-1781, WITH the "overseas", "Bourbon War of 1778", "after Yorktown", is the overlapping sixteen months TIME PERIOD of shooting war from June 1778 to September 1782, which the British have with the armed forces of the Congress for and against independence, and which the British have with the armed forces of the Bourbon kings for and against regions in their respective global empires. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Could 'War' end without any more shooting between Congress & Britain and a promise of independence?

Your quote from where? Also regardless of Rockingham & King George III, the war with America wasn't over - it was merely a change in strategy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful. The quote you posted from (A.Page, 2014) Britain's Seventy Year War, "The loss of American" war #1 a rebellion declared on Britain July 4, 1776, lost, done and dusted. One can fairly say, "a done deal" as of the GEORGE III April 1782 promise to Lord Rockingham for American independence before Rockingham became Prime Minister.

The French were tied to the Spanish; they dropped the Americans. The French refused joint Franco-American peace negotiations after October 1781 to honor their Spanish treaty to fight Britain until Spain acquired Gibraltar. After Yorktown, BEFORE news of British victories against Bourbons on sea and on land, British "change of strategy" was to accede to all five American war aims unanimously declared in Congress: independence, evacuation, territory & navigation, fishing rights. The abandoned Americans did not procrastinate, but accepted their independence separately in an Anglo-American Treaty of Paris without France or Spain at the table. The Bourbons, after suffering crucial defeats "overseas from America" in THEIR "War of 1778" (Mahon) against Britain, conclusively agreed to peace in respective Treaties of Versailles with Britain, without American signatories. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Britain accepted independence in September 1782 after successfully separating France from the US in the negotiations. This was a British strategy in diplomacy taken on the advantage of victories in 1782. The "War of 1778" is barely used by historians. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There you go again, dismissing both Parliament and Congress because they are democratic representative legislatures. FRANCE turned its back on the Americans by not negotiating peace with the April 1782 George III promise for American independence, a "tacit" agreement that fulfilled the requirements of the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance. FRANCE chose to honor the Bourbon Family Pact instead, and fight on against Britain for the Aranjuez Treaty war aim of a Spanish Gibraltar.

- Whigs such as Lord Rockingham and Lord Shelburne had been openly for American independence in the House of Lords since 1775. When first Rockingham ascended, the Shelburne succeeded to the British Prime Ministership after him, the British could negotiate separately with the American delegation in Paris ONLY AFTER THE AMERICANS discovered the FRENCH (Vergennes) were FIRST separately negotiating with London WITHOUT THEM.

- Yes, the Shelburne ministry was happy to share the secret French documents with the Americans in Paris - to the end of separating the Americans from the French, but the break was the French DOING, and the pro-American-independence British Ministry were merely catalysts. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

How off-handed was French declaration of war to invade England?

France's declaration of war was taken on the whim after Saratoga.. that is a known fact. France took advantage of Britain's weakness. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

YOUR unsupported 'known fact' at a Talk:page is invariably NOT supported by our mutually-agree-to-RS. ALL cited-to-date professional US and Euro-trained scholars take the position that France was awaiting an opportunity to 'even the score' with Britain after its humiliation in America during the Seven Years' War.

Without let up, no 'era-of-good-feeling'. British maritime courts at Majorca were said to be more arbitrary and punitive to international shipping claims than in the Barbary Muslim ports (In the prior century, Suleiman the Magnificent had allowed co-religionist merchants to preside over fellow believers at maritime suits).

Of what "whim" among the French do you speak? Louis XVI, his ministers, and his court, all had an undeviating focus to "turn the tables" on the English for fifteen years since the 1763 Treaty of Paris. So I ask @Eastfarthingan: WHAT "whim", WHO held it, WHERE is evidence of any "whim" to be found for French antipathy to the British during the BIG 1689-1815 Second Hundred Years' War that many Euro-RS (even Smithsonian's Allison) historiographically place the LITTLE American Revolution into? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

’Louis XVI, his ministers, and his court, all had an undeviating focus to "turn the tables" on the English for fifteen years since the 1763 Treaty of Paris.’ Exactly they needed an opportunity. The French were eager for revenge so seeing the British position after Saratoga that moment came. The whim was in the aftermath of the Falklands Crisis as I mentioned. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, no hard feelings. Not everyone who logs onto the English Wikipedia understands the language. Here it is: "a whim is a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind" : fancy quit his job on a whim. --- The word, "whim", does NOT describe the French very Catholic King, Louis XVI, his Royal Court, Government, nor their resident national populace, all wanting revenge on the once-victorious British. THERE IS NO "capricious, sudden change-of-mind", FROM Anglophile TO Anglophobe among the 18th century French of any class or station, over the entire course of the century . . . (well, there was a short-lived fad among some, not all, Parisian salons for a bit, to take up the British whist card game until the American Revolution broke out). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Small things are a part of big things, not vice versa

Eastfarthingan, you've got both things backwards. Britain does NOT start all the wars, just the one with the Dutch so they can't get into League of Armed Neutrality convoys with Russian Navy escorts, and some pay-back for aid to the Americans, too.

CHRONOLOGICALLY: #1 American colonists rebel against Britain for their independence as of July 1776, and #2 France and Spain declare war against Britain as of 1778-79 for war aims enumerated in the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779]], for Spanish Gibraltar, et alia.

HISTORIOGRAPHICALLY: Scholars place the American French and Indian War within the wider global Euro great powers Seven Years' War, NOT the other way around. Scholars do NOT place the the wider global Euro great powers "Bourbon War" or our mutually-agreed-to-RS Mahan (1890) "War of 1778" that France and Spain declared on Britain, within the more limited "colonial conflict" (Clodfelter) of the American Revolutionary War. Clodfelter, for instance, fashions the term "War of the American Revolution".

But Allison, another mutually-agree-to-RS places the ARW within the Euro great powers Second Hundred Years' War. Allison places the 1750s-1763 American war to 1763 chronologically inside the Euro great powers war of the period, he then consistently with an intellectual integrity places the 1770s-1783 American war chronologically inside the Euro great powers war of that period - noting distinguishing elements between the two conflicts. @Eastfarthingan: BACKWARDS, without any wp:reliable source, strives to put everything upside down: the limited small-scale war by any metric, geography, troop numbers, ship tonnage, deaths, IS wp:POV MEANT TO SWALLOW the global large-scale war, AND their encyclopedia articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said Britian started the war - France and Spain took advantage of Britain's weakness. Also both needed to war with Britain - look at the Falklands Crisis of (1770) - Spain had to back down as France couldn't go to war. Spain had to make sure that the stage was set for a declaration and that is exactly what they did in 1779. Britain declared war on the Dutch to prevent any such declaration by Russia and Sweden. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TVH, your section title here makes an excellent point. Spain declared war on Britain over Gibraltar, which by itself should tell us that that campaign was a separate affair with its own singular objective. As has been noted numerous times, though some sources refer to that campaign as "part of" the ARW it is always done so in a passing or academic capacity, (i.e.same time period, peace talks) while, as you've pointed out a number of times now, a few of those sources go on to further distinguish that campaign as its own affair, having nothing to do with the overall fate of American independence, which, once again, was settled between P.M. Shellburn and John Jay, without the consent of Spain or France. That the campaign was brought up at the peace talks doesn't cancel out the idea that terms could have been resolved another way, as the Americans were holding most if not all the high cards. Britain was not in a position to say American independence is denied because Spain is not happy. Britain wanted trade with America with its vast resources and navigation on the Mississippi and all the trading potential it offered. The settlements made were just an expedient way to come to terms – it would be naive to assume it was the only way. Once again, Yorktown ended the war in reality, save a few minor battles that occurred thereafter. If Britain was in a position to effectively continue the war after Yorktown she would have done so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

'was settled between P.M. Shellburn and John Jay, without the consent of Spain or France.' Well this was down to the fact that Britain wanted to separate France from the US and this was made more easier so with the Battle of the Saintes and the ongoing siege of Gibraltar. As John Jay said with negotiations going on -

• We are very much occupied with Gibraltar. We stand at the threshold of great events. Pray God that they will be auspicious. I believe that they could bring very much closer the epoch of peace which we all wish for, a peace both good and solid. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Chronology: The Royal King George III promises American independence April 1782, so he can form a government in Parliament with ROCKINGHAM. The more pro-American cause SHELBURNE, takes up the baton at Rockingham's death to pursue the Whig policy of American peace and independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed but it didn't end the war just merely a guarantee for American independence and British policy of seperating America from France in terms of the peace talks, which the British achieved. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Royal King George III made a promise for American independence to the Parliament official, who would be his Prime Minister, and George III was good for it. No RS disputes that, subsequent Anglo-American history bears that out. By April 1782, Parliament had already resolved that any act or advocacy for offensive action in America against Congress was "against the good of the country", and so violators would be subject to execution by its "Bill of Attainder". The subject was then and there no longer an issue of open debate in Britain. The terms of the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance were thus met: Article 8. "tacit" British agreement to American independence had been attained at the Royal King George promise for American independence. France could end its war with Britain on America's account by the provisions of the Franco-American Treaty.

Britain achieved the diplomatic Franco-American separation AFTER the American delegation learned of the French secret negotiation with Britain, including their "allied" French proposal for the US western boundary at the Appalachians found in Shelburne's diary, see the maps at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War#Preliminary agreements. The FRENCH turned their back on American war aims. FRANCE continued fighting Britain after Yorktown for Spain's Gibraltar, violating their 1788 1778 defensive military alliance to protect American trade: Article 2. "the essential and direct end" of the alliance. But France did maintain their 1788 1778 treaty of trade with the US based on the Congressional free-trade Model Treaty. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re saying all this but that doesn’t mean that Britain’s war with America ended in April 1782 they were still at war regardless and nothing you can say can change that. Please explain the 1788 treaty of trade? I'm confused. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Good eye. 1788 1778. Thanks again, you help me with number typos. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Did British victories bring US independence in Mahan's "Bourbon War of 1778", those in chapters "after Yorktown"?

The Americans victorious at Saratoga and Yorktown, were to achieve all their war aims without France or Spain, or the Bourbon defeats elsewhere. WHAT source says SAINTES victory led George III to promise American independence BEFORE news of it reached London? No, the Saintes had bearing on British negotiations with the Bourbons in their "War of 1778" (Mahan) for imperial gain. That was apart and after American won its independence on the battlefield at Yorktown. The French were tied to the Spanish AFTER Yorktown by their Bourbon Family Pact and the "foolish" treaty at Aranjuez, SO THEN, YES, then Britain could separate the Americans from the manifestly Spanish-wed-French. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Saintes victory led to British resolve at the peace talks - they objected to American claims on the Newfoundland fisheries and Canada. As a result the American negotiators led by John Jay became more amenable. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The American war aims declared unanimously in Congress were all achieved: independence, evacuation, territory to the Mississippi & navigation, fishing rights. You implied Newfoundland fishing rights were not; THEY WERE. Nova Scotia was NOT an agreed to war aim in Congress. The "negotiating chip" for "Nova Scotia, the Fourteenth Colony" (John Hanc, Smithsonian 2017) was a just a head-fake, impossible to attain after British mass migration there by Loyalist veterans and their families 1781-1782. This insight requires a look at the historical record beyond strictly limited research into diplomatic diaries for sources.

The American cultural ties to long-term residents were strong, local partisans aided American punitive raids and privateers right under the noses of the British fleet stationed there, and the British took the threat of Americans as possibly prolonging of their war with Britain seriously, no doubt aided in diplomatic conversation around Paris by the passionate advocacy that New England John Adams might bring to the subject. (Today Nova Scotian bars feature the New England Patriots games rather than Canadian soccer or cricket.)

In November 1781 the "country gentlemen" in the British House of Commons deserted the pro-American war Tory coalition, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, to prepare against the next invasion of England in the "Bourbon War of 1778" (Mahan 1890 in chapters "after Yorktown"), the country lords-of-the-manor were rallying to the flag to officer regular regiments and county militias, patriotically motivated by the military activity in French and Spanish ports as reported in the London press. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And this all proves that will the war still carried on regardless. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The "American War" with the colonists is over for Britain. It is wp:error to suppose: the American war was spread globally by the imperial British -- fighting for their colonies in an RS 'civil war', then surrendering them without consulting other Euro global powers. Beginning at 'Yorktown' October 1781, the Americans stop replacing regiments at the end of their enlistment. Anglo-American truce ends all campaigning in the South at Yorktown and in the North at New York. At American-war-PM Lord North's exclamation, "Oh, God! It's over!", George III promises Lord Rockingham for American independence April 1782. Continental Navy ships are sold or given away to meet past-due Congressional war debt. November 1782 Deputies of Parliament and Congress agree there will be no war between US citizens and British subjects anywhere in the world on land or at sea, unanimously ratified in Congress 15 April 1783 before news of 'Saintes' British victory.

BUT YOUR HISTORICAL ANALYSIS PERSISTS in wp:error: "this all proves that will the war still carried on regardless". Apparently, your ideology cannot accept the express will of either Parliament or Congress. Parliament will make no more offensive war. All Congressional war aims are met. YOU NOW INSIST that throughout Wikipedia article pages, the end of "War of the American Revolution" by Euro great powers" comes by the diplomatic whim of two Bourbon monarchs alone amidst their Second Hundred Years' War on Britain -- For the Euros blood-letting over Gibraltar, okay, but NOT for the American Revolutionary War -- our mutually-agreed-to-RS war for and against British North American colony independence, the War of American Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

'The "American War" with the colonists is over for Britain' in theory yes but no peace had been made. Britain needed favourable peace terms to end the war even if it meant losing American colonies. The battle of the Saintes, the Siege of Gibraltar, capture of French convoys in Atlantic (as well as expensive ships of the line), the Royal navy blockade of America and Admiral Hughes successfully defending India were key exit strategy engagements to bring it to a successful conclusion. To quote Anotnhy Paige - aside from some lamentation, Britons were not traumatised by the loss of America. In addition to the fact that cultural and economic ties soon revived this owes something to the fact that Britain effectively won the last year of the global war. With the Americans split from their allies peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Delightful. In your view, the shooting war is "in theory", and "in reality" for the American Revolutionary War, all awaits the Parisian salon among formal diplomatic exchanges, speculative rumors and spy misinformation. But everybody went home from the British colonial war in America on both sides. --- A cursory look at military history on the various topics related to "American Revolutionary War" see the shooting war in America as substantial conflict within the scope of the field'.

military history concerns itself with shooting-war strategy & logistics, grand-tactics & participant maneuver, armament and practice. Outside that field lies diplomatic history, which is often elaborated with speculation about several governments, including belligerents, co-belligerents, neutrals, mediators, and their respective internal factions, cliques, ambitious players, including their correspondence, motives, and intent. This is all OUTSIDE the scope of military history, such as the Anglo-French War (1778-1783), or France in the American Revolutionary War.

After the British colonial war is effectively ended at Yorktown October 1781, ANTHONY PAIGE says, Britain effectively won the last year of the global war with France and Spain globally, 'Saintes' and 'Gibraltar' as Mahan has it, "after Yorktown". Clodfelter places them "overseas" from the colonial "American Revolution", after it, apart from it, in his clearly defined global "War of the American Revolution".

BRITISH "peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783", Britain with France and Spain for THEIR global war without US signatories who are ipso facto not a part of a global war they do not sign on for. American Preliminary Peace was November 1782. ANTHONY PAIGE does NOT equate November 1782 = January 1783. Eastfarthingan deliberately misapplies PAIGE by wp:POV, which is deprecated on Wikipedia Talk pages. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The ‘shooting war’ in America is a made up term you have created. The war still carried on - only the strategy had changed.

The Paige quote is exactly is it said. Britain effectively won the last year of the global war now you’re putting words into his mouth which is very unwise. No need to analyse an historian in which he clearly states the facts. He isn’t Shakespeare with hidden analogies.The American Revolutionary war was a global war, historians have said it and there is a popular perception regarding it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's okay. Everyone logging onto the English Wikipedia understands the language. At Merriam-Webster, "shooting war" is "a war or warfare involving military operations and actual conflict between armed forces". It is a common phrase used among MILITARY HISTORIANS, rather than those of international diplomacy in fancy Parisian salons.

- Clodfelter makes the distinction between the two wars, a mutually-agreed-to-RS among Lord Cornwallis, XavierGreen, Eastfarthingan, Gwillhickers, and TheVirginiaHistorian. The colonial insurrection between British subjects 1775-1783 is "popularly called" as Clodfelter says, the "American Revolutionary War". But our scholar wants to use a DIFFERENT TERM for the DIFFERENT WAR, a global one encompassing international belligerents diplomatically "declaring war" on Britain in a way that the rebel independence Congress cannot and does not.

- The term for global conflict between the British and the Bourbons for Clodfelter is "War of the American Revolution" so that casual readers DO NOT CONFUSE THE GLOBAL WAR with the AMERICAN REVOLUTION. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Did 1782 British blockade stop ITS belligerents only, or ALL trade to America?

Most of Congress believed international free trade was the key to the future survival of the United States, including the Paris delegation, former presiding officers of Congress John Jay (NY) and Henry Laurens (SC), New England political boss John Adams (MA). Likewise, "the Enlightenment lightning-rod-darling" of the European courts, Benjamin Franklin. Everywhere he went in salons and coffee houses, he handed out translated copies of Adam Smith's 1776 "Wealth of Nations" that argued for international free trade. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

An the Royal Naval blockade in 1782 was hampering American trade showing that war was not over in America and no this was American waters, NOT international. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Only two sorts of commerce were hampered during the 1782 British blockade of American ports. First, belligerents of Britain in the "Bourbon War of 1788" (Mahan 1890), France and Spain. Second, other flags carrying war-contraband against established provisions of Euro great power international law. The "international waters" for their 18th century law reached out to the range of a fortress cannon at three miles. That is not the modern-day twelve-twenty miles, depending on your purpose or your politics.

Those two categories cover all the RS examples cited here, except the South Carolina privateer rented from a Euro prince with a Dutch captain and a foreign crew. The Congressional agreement with Britain was to be no war between "British subjects and American citizens". Congress did not sanction the privateer in the "South Carolina Navy" raiding British Caribbean merchantmen, South Carolina did. South Carolina also paid less than 40% of its assessed "requisitions" to Congress; South Carolina ignored Congressional law to compensate or restore confiscated Loyalist property. I say, take the South Carolina privateer for the prize money and award it to any British captain and crew that takes her. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

WHAT "belligerents in a second war"?

‘’First, belligerents of Britain in the "Bourbon War of 1788" (Mahan 1890),’’ I am still confused by this? As for ‘international waters’ the British were the ones conducting the blockade and preying on American merchants. These were being preyed upon as they were being shipped from France Spain and the Dutch Republic - the warring Euro nations supporting the Americans in one way or another. As for South Carolina this is false. The Action of 12 December 1782 certainly did not involve that ‘nation’ nor did the American privateer activity off Nova Scotia for example Raid on Lunenburg. In addition those men waging war certainly did not conduct 'treasonous activity' whether they were at the Battle of the Blue Licks or at the Battle of Kedges Strait. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

First, troll much? Belligerents of Britain in the "Bourbon War of 1788" (Mahan 1890) is the Mahan 1890 book, our mutually-agreed-to-RS by you and myself, that I have previously cited, directly quoted and linked to the specific online archived page for you. Another of our mutually-agreed-to-RS Mackesy notes that warring by British Royal Navy with France and Spain globally is "not about the American Revolution", but his book is about Britain's global strategy in the "last war in which the Bourbons were the enemy".

No reference is made here to the 1798-1800 Quasi-War with France; but presumably all merchants bound from Europe to the US in the 1780s were subject to the same searches, 'preyed upon' in overwrought Bourbon propaganda, searches by the British Navy for contraband arms supplies meant for the French and Spanish in their war on the British Caribbean, after Yorktown (Mahan 1890), and especially during the publicly-known run-up to the French-Spanish planned invasion of Jamaica that was miscarried at 'Saintes' French defeat by the Royal Navy.

My point remains unchallenged, AFTER YORKTOWN October 1781, neither Congress nor Parliament sponsors any further conflict, despite frontier ambushes and coastal looting by one partisan or another previously enlisted for war. No operation is directed by US armed forces, either the US Army or the US Navy. No engagement is coordinated with a US commander authorized by Congress. No Congressionally commissioned officer takes part, nor is one even present during any of the referenced engagements either on land or at sea -- not the privateers off Feral, Spain, not the unknown number of British without an identified British commander, not the frontier ambush of Kentucky militia by Canadian Loyalists, not the privateer looting and ransom at Lunenburg without military purpose - an assault repulsed by three sentries who saved Sambro, Nova Scotia by killing one raider. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

'Belligerents of Britain in the "Bourbon War of 1788" (Mahan 1890)' - I'm still interested to know what war this is you consistently repeat. Also "last war in which the Bourbons were the enemy" what was it this as there is only the American Revolutionary war that historians have used countless times. AFTER YORKTOWN October 1781, neither Congress nor Parliament sponsors any further conflict it is challenged and that doesn't mean that conflicts stopped as indicated by post Yorktown engagements and campaigns mentioned above. It also means the Royal Naval blockade campaign against America can continue (and is strengthened in 1782) in order for Americans to speed negotiations. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

MILITARY HISTORIANS study these two major conflicts for Great Britain during the Second Hundred Years' War, between the Seven Years’ War and the Napoleonic Wars. The longer one is a civil war between Parliament and Congress that formally lasts 1776-1783, with a shooting war among British subjects 1775-1781. The shorter one lasts formally 1778-1783, with a shooting war June 1778 through 1782-and-a-month. Of some interest to MILITARY HISTORIANS, the second shooting war overlaps the first for sixteen months.

The two conflicts are (1) the British North American colonial rebellion, the “American Revolution”, known in contemporary London press as "the American war", and (2) the “global, last war the Bourbons were the enemy”, known in the contemporary London press as "the Bourbon war". Among the "mutually-agreed-to-RS" by Lord Cornwallis, XavierGreen, Eastfarthingan, Gwillhickers, TheVirginiaHistorian, et alia, THREE military historians maintain this distinction, including : PIERS MACKESY 1993, MICHAEL CLODFELTER 2015 (1992), and ALFRED MAHAN 1890.

“The vast majority” of your named references that we are NOT agreed to, are challenged cites to amateur historians published in the popular press without wp:peer review, OR THEY ARE GLOBAL REFERENCES TO YOUR DEPRECATED BROWSER SEARCH that is unverifiable, not neutral, and without notable results, see What a search test CANNOT do. The ones that you care to name on wp:Talk pages are variously deprecated in academic journals, mentioned as “received” but not reviewed, or they not mentioned at all because they are not worthy of note in any sense, not as un-reliable history nor as popular literature meant for airport-kiosk use only to make newspaper "best-seller" lists.

The royal blockade against America, that you refer to is at sea, and directed against British RS-“Bourbon enemies” who continue to wage war against Britain, RS-“after Yorktown” October 1781. As noted above, there is conflict on the American-Indian frontier regardless of any deliberation in Paris salons, and there is additional self-serving looting on both "sides", by British soldiers without officers and rogue privateers without military purpose -- both unrelated to the issue for or against American independence between Congress and Parliament. But every single engagement post-October 1781 is not sponsored by Congress, not commanded by its commissioned officers, and initiated without the knowledge or consent of Congress. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

let’s get the facts straight here - stop manipulating them. The American Revolutionary War started from April 1775 and finished in September 3, 1783. It was a global war and regardless of whether the “last war the Bourbons were the enemy”. What war is this? I know nothing of a last war.

’amateur historians’? So you are challenging the likes of Samuel Flagg Bemis, +David K. Allison and Larrie D. Ferreiro (Pulitzer finalists) whom I have quoted plenty of times. These are historians published in the popular press with wp:peer review. Also you cannot hide from minor conflicts happening on American soil post Yorktown regardless of local ceasefires. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Lets go with mainstream historiography in the English language globally as the reach of Wikipedia, both for scholars, for the general reader, and for those with English as a second language, with a reference you have failed to challenge over three-or-four months. The premier British scholarly reference found online at Encyclopedia Britannica for the | title=American Revolution American Revolution is authored by Willard M. Wallace, Emeritus Professor of History, Wesleyan University, author of Appeal to Arms: A MILITARY History of the American Revolution, published by Quadrangle Books, an imprint of Princeton University.

- What is the accepted mainstream definition for the American Revolution? ANSWER: "American Revolution, (1775-83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America." --- There is NO reference to “overseas” war exclusively between British and Bourbon belligerents, not 'Saintes', not 'Gibraltar'. But at the same time, there is NO questioning of Bemis or Allison, either by Willard Wallace or myself. The ONLY OBJECTION here is to (a) Eastfarthingan wp:POV misreading, misrepresentation, and misuse of his snippet-quotes of RS scholars out-of-context, OBJECTION: THESE ARE NOT 'FACTS', and (b) wp:Talk page reference to “a vast majority of historians”, meaning a lone-editor browser-search “data dump” that is unverifiable, not neutral, with not-wp:notable “hits” per wp:one-off browser searches.

- 18th century North America is a violent place, tavern "no-holds-barred" fights routinely result in eye-gouging loss of eyesight, and ears bitten half-off. I do not hide from ”minor conflicts happening on American soil”. But if they are not related for-or-against American independence, I do not include them in the ARW, especially if they are (a) not officially condoned, neither Parliament nor Congress, (b) not officered by either legislature’s commissioned officers, and (c) with no military significance nor even any propaganda bearing on the outcome of diplomatic negotiations in Paris after Yorktown October 1781. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Did Americans trust their future to free trade, or to British world dominion?

At Jay's quote, he was NOT rejoicing at British triumph over the Bourbons as the answer to all his prayers for the American future. RATHER: (1) Congress had achieved virtually the Congressional Model Treaty for trade with France and the Dutch Republic; (2) the Whig Prime Minister Shelburne promised the same kind of follow-on trade treaty soon (never happened, Shelburne was outsted); (3) similar trade treaties were in the offing among the League of Armed Neutrality: Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sweden et alia. FREE TRADE brings a worldwide peace good and solid among the previously warring Euro great powers that sets the predicate for the survival of the new American Republic. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Jay's quote was taken BEFORE the Franco-Spanish Grand Assault and BEFORE the British singed the Preliminary Articles of Peace with America on 30 November. He's clearly states Gibraltar is key to the peace and ending the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Jay clearly states that "we" in the international diplomatic corps in Paris, "are very much occupied with Gibraltar. We stand at the threshold of great events." Jay prays for an auspicious outcome for all diplomacy to end war, bringing "the epoch of peace which we all wish for, a peace both good and solid." By that he means, a peace good and solid based on international free trade and the survival of the American republic.

Nowhere does Jay advocate for the abject humiliation of France and Spain. Rather he and Congress seek trade agreements on the Model Treaty basis with them both. Nowhere does Jay pray for Britain to ascend to the worldwide domination that a British victory at Gibraltar might entail. Rather he and Congress seek the unfulfilled trade agreement with Britain on the Model Treaty basis as promised in negotiations by Shelburne before his ouster. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll find you're just analysing that quote too much. That quote is clearly visible to all and make no mistake he meant what he said. It's got nothing to do with Britain wanting to ascend to the worldwide domination. Nor was there any advocate for the abject humiliation of France and Spain. It was as you said looking forward to ending the war. The whole point was how important Gibraltar was in ending the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The whole point [of Jay's quote] was how important Gibraltar was in ending the war... by the Bourbons against Britain, in the conversations, gossip and spying among the dipolmatic corps stationed at Paris in the Summer-Fall 1782. A "Spanish Gibraltar" was NOT a matter of Congressional war-aim policy to end either its War of Independence, or any American warring with Britain globally that might interrupt American free-trade with all nations that Congress saw as necessary to US survival. At Congress ratifying the Anglo-American November 1782 Preliminary Peace, it explicitly refused in public debate to acknowledge or address a supplementary British-envoy statement regarding Britain ceding East Florida and West Florida to Spain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with a congressional war aim policy that much is obvious. The whole point was that the Gibraltar siege given the Jay quote, was the deciding factor in ending the American Revolutionary war as already quoted by Allison, David K; Ferreiro, Larrie D - critical event in the war outside America was a contemporaneous European siege that was bigger, lasted longer, and ultimately was as critical to establishing peace as the Yorktown victory. The American Revolutionary war was a global war the vast majority of historians use the war to define the general engagements all over. War of 1778 or Bourbon War have scarcely been used by historians and is scant used even today. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What is obvious is that the former President of Continental Congress and future Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN JAY as American consul in Paris, did faithfully STRIVE-FOR-AND-ATTAIN Congressional war aim policy at the Anglo-American peace with Britain: independence, evacuation, territory, navigation, and fishing rights. To characterize that as "nothing to do with Congress" is spurious. If, as I said, the Jay quote was addressing Parisian salon gossip among the international diplomatic corps, then it is not meant to characterize American peace with Britain depending on Gibraltar, but only that Gibraltar was brought up amidst chatter about the British-Bourbon global conflict ongoing without Congress knowledge or consent.

’British-Bourbon global conflict ongoing without Congress knowledge or consent.’ Are you saying that the global war was being fought with congresses ignorance? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

- What is clear from DAVID ALLISON, is that during the WAR OUTSIDE AMERICA and contemporaneous to BRITISH-BOURBON negotiations in Paris: GIBRALTAR October 1782 was as critical to establishing BRITISH-BOURBON PEACE January 1783 as cited by ANTHONY PAGE :: as YORKTOWN October 1781, was critical to establishing BRITISH-AMERICAN PEACE November 1782, as cited by PIERS MACKESY.

Well done glad you acknowledged that showing that it was a global war. Gibraltar and Saintes were critical to peace with America knowing a favourable treaty was going to be made with France and Spain. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

- The terms “War of 1778” and “Bourbon War” are used by our “mutually-agreed-upon-RS”, that is why the point is relevant to this Talk page. Notwithstanding that it is scant used today among best-sellers published in the popular press without academic wp:peer review or scholarly journal review . . . titles ginned up in your deprecated browser search that is unverifiable, not neutral, and without notable results. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I said it is scant used today and the quotes I have used are from historians published in the popular press with academic wp:peer review and/or scholarly journal review. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Around and around we go. It seems we can all agree that the sources vary in their terms. Maintaining focus, no one has presented a reason why we should take the battles fought between France and Britain in the West Indies, over their possessions, and lump them in with the battles fought by the American and French belligerents over American independence. e.g.The Battle of Saintes was fought between France and Britain, over Jamaica and its sugar trade, involving no American belligerents, and having nothing to do with the battles fought over America independence. That it was a bargaining chip at the peace talks doesn't make that battle as one fought for independence. Again, we have had two dedicated articles for two sets of battles. There is no pressing or viable reason why we should jumble all these battles, with completely different objectives, all together in a one-size-fits-all article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes around we go - more repetition. 'Battle of Saintes was fought between France and Britain, over Jamaica and its sugar trade,' is just your own opinion that isn't backed up by any sources. We have discussed this. Historians and popular bloggers have dismissed this being part of any war other than the American Revolution. We can prove this just by looking at web pages devoted to the American Revolution.

• Who Really “Crossed the T” in the Battle of the Saintes? JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION © 2018
• The Battle of the Saintes by C . S Forester AMERICAN HERITAGE. Quote - No American ships were involved, yet on its outcome hung Great Britain’s recognition of our independence
• American Revolution: Battle of the Saintes, ThoughtCo.
• Battle of the Saintes - From Victory to Defeat – Admiral Francois de Grasse and the Battle of the Saintes – April 12, 1782 Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

NONE of these four (4) are your misrepresented RS. They are not RS. The online Journal of the American Revolution is a wonderful one-man-band production without academic connections. C.S. Forrester is a delightful British novelist who chronicles the adventures of Royal Navy Lieutenant Hornblower off Spain in the Napoleonic Wars. The online "History-is-Fun" blog is anonymous without scholarly support. None of these are on a par with Pulitzer Prize winners or even nominees for DISTINGUISHED scholarly history.

Kennedy Hickman is the director of the Penn State Sports Museum, who accurately sets the context for French Admiral de Grasse naval operations in the Caribbean for a joint Spanish invasion of Jamaica. 'Saintes' is "after Yorktown" which breaks British will to continue war against independence (our RS-Mackesy, p.xxiv). The British Whig government immediately begins peace with the Americans, but continues the Bourbon War "effectively against France" (our RS-Mackesy, p. xvi).

THE WEBSITE ThoughtCo that is publishing Hickman's 'Saintes' piece online is one of the imprints of the premier publisher for self-help downloads, DOTDASH. Its CEO is famous for digital entertainment properties, and now he focuses on promoting "the best products for your life" backed by a team of former Amazon and eBay employees. Its LifeStyle Commerce is headed by the director of lifestyle content for About.com. THOUGHTCO ITSELF is led by Dr. Allen Grove, a writing specialist proficient in helping high schoolers transition into college, and Dr. Anne Marie Hemmilstein, a science writer.

Their webpage is inviting: "We’re always looking for experienced online freelance writers ... to provide content that ... leaves readers feeling educated, empowered, and understood." ... but that is NOT wp:RELIABLE SOURCE of the Pulitzer Prize winners for "distinguished" history such as Joseph J. Ellis (2001) and David Hackett Fischer (2005). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

These are examples of popular perception today; they are not meant to be reliable sources. The latter are the designs of David K Allison, Larrie D Ferreiro, Charles Botta, Samuel Flagg Bemis, these being among best-sellers published in the popular press with academic wp:peer review or scholarly journal review. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the Eastfarthingan post said four (4) NOT-wp:RS were sources to disprove just your own opinion that isn't backed up by any sources. I have challenged your misinterpretation and misapplication of Allison, Ferreiro, Botta, Bemis. For two-months you have not been able to make an answer to my critique challenging your "Global American Revolutionary War", without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation. The only answer you can make is, "just your own opinion that isn't backed up by any sources." None of the four (4) named scholars are published in the popular press; they are all four (4) published in the academic press. While Pulitzer Prize winners have written distinguished history, those books are not always to be found in every newspaper's best-seller list.

RS-SCHOLARS SUPPORTING the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America include secondary sources such as Alfred Mahan 1890, Piers Mackesy 2015 [1964] -- our mutually-ageed-to-RS -- these are important for the sake of our wp:good faith discussion here. But also, now that you mention the PULITZERS, here are thirteen (13), only one (1) of whom you contest: Bernard Bailyn 1968, Daniel Boorstin 1974, John J. Ellis 2000, Robert Middlekauff 1983, Forrest McDonald 1986, Richard White* 1992, Gordon S. Wood 1993, Lance Banning 1996, Jack Rakove 1997, Joseph J. Ellis 2001, Daniel Richter* 2002, David Hackett Fischer 2005, and Larrie D. Ferreiro* 2007, whom you misinterpret on these pages.

MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, you cannot impeach the tertiary source, Encyclopedia Britannica the premier scholarly resource in the English language worldwide for English-language users: "American Revolution, (1775-83, insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America." Not a word about the Bourbon Family Pact, their Aranjuez Compact, or the Second Anglo-Mysore War. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WRONG - they are wp:RS; you are only denying them their right because you disagree with their facts. They are published in the popular press; and all four are published in the academic press. As for Encyclopedia Britannica I have not yet used that as a source nor have I even subscribed to it to even view it. The American Revolution was a global war all battles were tied one way or another look at De Grasse at Yorktown and then the Saintes. Or Gibraltar being a decider for all peace parties. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, your Talk page post relies on confusion and misdirection. “They are published in the popular press; and all four are published in the academic press”, is a wp:nonsense statement, "while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it."

- GROUP-A, four in this thread are NOT wp:reliable sources. They are #1 a self-published webpage, #2 a med-school drop-out fiction writer, #3 an anonymous post on a “fun” titled website, and #4 an online post from the director of the Penn State Sports Museum on an open forum website advertising self-help products. --- GROUP-B, four in this thread are scholars of note whom you misrepresent and misapply out of context. You have previously provided links and they explicitly contradict your wp:error purporting a POV “Global ARW historiography” versus the historical “Global Euro war on Britain.

- WP founder Jimbo has two criteria that apply here for wp:editor consensus at wp:due weight: (1) One of the “commonly accepted reference texts” for the American Revolution is the open-access online Britannica, article “American Revolution” here, and (2) PROMINENT ADHERENTS for the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America, ten (10) Pulitzer-winners and three (3) finalists; for one finalist (1) your challenge fails by your misstatement.

- Do not merge a not-American Revolution topic into a sister article on the American Revolution (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn't nonsense compared to what you have said - in addition none of your named scholars are published in the popular press either. You have challenged my misinterpretation and misapplication? How is quoting sources word for word been misinterpreted or misapplied? Your are deflecting the main issue and using your own opinion to misinterpret and misapply the quote sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan? wp:reliable source deprecates, that is no-good-niks, popular press best-sellers without scholarly input. Of course "none of my named scholars are published in the popular press", they are not meant to achieve newspaper best-seller lists. Your search-snippets of three-five words do not convey the meaning or context intended by the author, which is why I render their quote-passages for two-three lines, after reading the page before and the page after each quote, whenever possible.

The main issue is whether there is any evidence that Congress or Britain spread their insurrection-civil-war on North American continent to the Euro great powers for Bourbon imperial gains in the Bourbon Aranjuez Compact? No. Or to the contrary, did Euro powers declare war on Britain and engage it for their imperial gain on land and sea without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation of its commissioned officers? Yes.

To date, you have shown no document evidence to connect American independence to Euro great-power imperial expansion and contraction in the 1700s. There is only a vague historiographic gauze of "international perspective" assertions that tentatively speculate about how the Bourbon-British warfare 1778-1783 worldwide was overlapped "during" a historian's timeline by the Ango-American warfare 1775-1783 in America. But no document evidence makes a connection between the two timeline bars floating along-side one another on paper. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have shown plenty of evidence to connect American independence to Euro great-power imperial expansion and contraction in the 1700s. With the likes Samual Flagg Bemis, David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro, Perkins, Anthony Page and Charles Botta. I have quoted them many times and they are wp:reliable sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

They all say the timelines of the Anglo-American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 and the Bourbon-British War 1778-1783 overlap for a number of months. There is no quote from a document connecting them, such as from Admiral de Grasse in his court martial after Battle of the Saintes. Perkins et al make no such mention because there is no such evidence connecting the two separate wars for two different purposes in two different places. You have not provided any such quote from them, because there is none. Here there is only your unsourced POV historiography of gauzy generalizations. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The "small swallows big" historiography applied elsewhere

Those who want to jumble wars may find more fertile ground in merging the Euro-centered World War II into the Second Sino-Japanese War, using the same rationale proposed here for MERGING the LARGE scale global conflict (by all metrics, troops engaged, casualties, financial cost) to be merged into the SMALL one-continent conflict "sparking" a subsequent worldwide conflict with many other participants elsewhere. So, Russia needs to be listed throughout the period July 1937-1945 September, as a Chinese co-belligerent, and likewise Germany as a Japanese co-belligerent, to stop any Euro-centered article bias addressing the worldwide conflict, July 1937-1945 September, for our "jumble wars editors".

The July 1937 war began on one continent, but soon spread to adjacent empires worldwide, to the British at Singapore, the French, the Dutch, the American at the Philippines, and so it spread globally, and various allies formed around their support of this conflict elsewhere based on their own self-interest, but all were "in reality", IN THE SAME WAR. "Jumble-wars-editors" will not want to discount the prominence and preeminence of the Japanese and the Chinese as determining the historiography of the ONE-GLOBAL-WAR of the mid-20th century, merely because of their skin-colour.

"In fact" to the "jumble-wars-editors", there was ONLY ONE GREAT GLOBAL WAR -- who can say that there were ever TWO-at-the-same-time wars in the history of world military conflict when it involved Britain? The-one-world-war-of-the-Sino-Japanese and their respective allies worldwide, did NOT end until the conclusive peace between the Chinese and the Japanese with their interrelated and connected respective allies. Others June 1937-1945 September were "in the reality of DIPLOMATIC history", dragged along with the Asians, each participating nation had no self-interest of their own, all were committed to fight until their Asian allies conclusively made peace -- IMPORTANTLY, just as in the "jumble-wars-editors" view for their 'global ARW' -- even when the fighting ended elsewhere and the armies on the other continents were disbanded). FOR ALL BELLIGERENTS ENGAGED, THAT WAR-ENDING DATE 'FOR A FACT' is, 2 September 1945 for "jumble-wars-editors".

By the same line of reasoning that "jumble-wars-editors" persist-in here for PROPOSE MERGE, the "global American Revolution" did NOT end until conclusive peace was made between the British and their Dutch Republic in April 1874, and to be consistent, there must follow a comprehensive merging of the Anglo-French War 1778, Anglo-Spanish War 1779, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, and Second Anglo-Mysore War -- INTO the American Revolutionary War'. -- OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, NOT. Don't Merge, any of them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Why mention the World War II? There wasn't an Anglo-German War (1939-45) was there, Unless I'm mistakened? Only the Second Sino-Japanese War was separate from WWII because it started earlier. As such it makes sense then that the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, and Second Anglo-Mysore War do exist as they ended at separate times in 1784. The Anglo-French War 1778, Anglo-Spanish War 1779, don't exist except in the heads of some users on wiki and fleetingly mentioned in very few sources. Hopefully we'll get an answer on this swiftly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Now you have it: "the Second Sino-Japanese War was separate from WWII because it started earlier". The American Revolutionary War was separate from the War of the American Revolution (Clodfelter 1991), also called the "Bourbon War of 1788" (Mahan 1890), because the ARW stared earlier. Now you have it: there was "an Anglo-German War (1939-45), elsewhere for different purposes than the Sino-Japanese War; there was a "British civil war in North America" elsewhere for different purposes than the Euro great power war declared on Britain (1778-1783). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The American Revolutionary War was separate from the War of the American Revolution also called the "Bourbon War of 1788" (Mahan 1890) I never realised this, is there something I should know? Never heard of it. Only ONE author has used this name. Also please name a source that mentions the 'Anglo-German war 1939-45'. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Why, what ever could you mean? The term is used here in wp:good faith by Eastfarthingan, of course you know that, you've been reading this thread posts in wp:good faith; Mahan, Clodfelter, Mackesy, are all three, our mutually-agreed-to-RS, so we can have a reasonable discussion in wp:good faith; you are not abruptly flinching from your agreement now, are you? "Say it ain't so, Joe!" --- You have heard of the acknowledged scholarly reference, Encyclopedia Britannica -- it is freely available to you online. Mainstream historiography on the topic has not varied since 2015, so amassing idiosyncratic and unverifiable search "hits" DO NOT influence the mainstream scholarly consensus among English-speaking historians: the ARW is for-and-against British North American colonial independence among the Thirteen Colonies.

Regardless of your unverifiable "vast majorities" of "historians" found in deprecated browser searches that surfacing non-college-degreed novelists and anonymous blogsters on 'fun' websites --- at Britannica, there is no reference to anything ARW-connected beyond the stated scope-of-war defined by the "insurrection" for American colonial independence in North America. --- Britannica has nothing about Congress or Britain making a Spanish Gibraltar or a French Jamaica, Congress and Parliament do not make that a part of their mutual British-subject insurrection-revolt, according to the standard scholarly reference, Britannica.

That revolt was ended by them alone at the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace November 1782, the "tacit" recognition of treaty-peace specified in the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance to end war against Britain in the cause of American independence. Other war by Euro great powers against Britain elsewhere for other purposes are not the "ARW", nor are Indian-fur-trader ambushes nor tavern ear-biting fights "after Yorktown" as our RS-Mahan puts it. --- Unlike your Talk-page misstatements, when your RS are read, they only show that the time of Anglo-American war 1775-1783 in North America lies on the calendar "during" the time of British-Bourbon war 1778-1783 elsewhere. There is no evidence anywhere connecting the Congress-Britain civil war in the ARW to the Bourbon Family Pact, nor their French-Spanish Aranjuez Convention to war on Britain for Bourbon imperial expansion at British imperial expense. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean since I'm not the one using Encyclopedia Britannica. Which by the way doesn't even mention a separate war between Britain and France , only the American Revolutionary war. Also how do you define Samual Flagg Bemis, David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro, Perkins, Anthony Page and Charles Botta as non-college-degreed novelists and anonymous blogsters on 'fun' websites? The websites are an example of popular perception but glad to think that they're just fun despite being the 'Smithsonian'.

There is plenty of evidence connecting the ARW to the Bourbon Family Pact, and the French-Spanish Aranjuez Convention to war on Britain. 'That revolt was ended by them alone at the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace November 1782'. Just a cheeky reminder the American Revolutionary War ended in September 1783 NOT' November 1782 regardless of whether they were preliminaries or not. There was still fighting on the American mainland such as Blue Licks in August 1782. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-French global rivalry v. British civil war in N.Am.

The Anglo-French wars existed on and off before, during and after the 18th century. Such conflicts continued to occur from 1778-1783, especially in the West Indies. The Anglo-French war (1778-1783) is the name of a Wikipedia article, dedicated to the Anglo-French wars that occurred during that date range. The battles involved trade and possession disputes between France and Britain, fall under the general heading of Anglo-French wars and should not be mixed in to an article that is dedicated to covering how France fought with the Americans in their struggle for independence. This is why we have two dedicated articles for two specific sets of conflicts. i.e.One for the conflicts over American independence, one for the conflicts over trade and possessions between France and Britain, involving no American belligerents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We know that - the repetition is becoming tiring. Historians haven't used 'Anglo-French war (1778)' much, and popular perception and due weight point to the fact that that the American Revolutionary war was a global war - that ended on September 3, 1783. This is irrelevant to whether any Americans were combatants or not. With dating the exception being the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War and the Second Mysore War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully concur with you Eastfarthingan. Absolutely no new evidence has been brought to the table proving that anything other than the American Revolutionary War is the name commonly used for the subject content of this article.XavierGreen (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan, WP has several articles that cover various periods of the Anglo-French Wars#1700s, and you'll be hard pressed to find the article titles specifically spelled out as such in history books, but they do overwhelmingly cover the Anglo-French wars of the 18th century, and they all point to shipping and trade disputes between France and Britain. And as you inadvertently admit, some scholars do place the battles in question under the heading of Anglo-French wars of 1778-1783. e.g.The battle of the Saintes occurred in 1782, between France and Britain, over shipping, trade and possessions, not over American independence, just like nearly all the other battles of the Anglo-French wars. That places it smack in the middle of the Anglo-French wars.

"From 1778 until 1783, with or without their continental European allies, the French continually contested British naval dominance in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the India Ocean, and most importantly, the West Indies." The first fleet action in European waters came early in the Anglo-French war, on 27 July, 1778. Hagan, Stoker & McMaster, 2009, p. 51.

Regardless of what label you chose to use, the battles in question were between Britain and France over shipping, trade and possessions, involving no American belligerents, as compared to those fought over American independence. As such, they don't belong mixed in with battles fought specifically over American independence. We have two dedicated articles for each set of battles. Still waiting for a source that actually explains how e.g.the battle of Saintes was involved in the struggle over American independence. Once again, being mentioned in peace talks doesn't make that battle as one fought for American independence, so I'm afraid that's as far as the "part of" the ARW claim has ever gone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You fail to state that the title of the Stoker & McMaster source is "Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach". Its plain that Stoker and McMaster consider the west indies campaign to be part of the American Revolutionary War (AKA the American War of Independence). The mere fact that on rare occasions sources uses Anglo-French War as an alternative name does not mean that this article should be titled as such as it is plainly not the commonly used name for this conflict. You have managed to cite to a mere handful of sources which explicitly use "Anglo-French War" for the subject content of this article and of those several use American Revolutionary War interchangably throughout the text with "Anglo-French War" as Stoker & McMaster do. In contract, Eastfarthingian and I have shown dozens upon dozens that favor the use of American Revolutionary War, which is plainly the common name for the subject content of this article. The article should thus be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Compared to the civil-war among British-subjects, the British war with Euro great powers is (a) more widespread, (b) costs more money and lives, (c) for different purposes, (d) with different sources of support in British population and Parliament. Here is a Euro-historians’ chart for reference:

Article scope for overlapping military conflicts

North American	Euro great power
French and Indian War 1754-1763 pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by Native American allies.	Seven Years' War 1756–1763 a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies in Congress against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation.	War of the American Revolution 1775–1783 "In 1778, the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution [against Britain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, among [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch], the last British-European war with the Bourbons as their enemies.

Citation

Bibliography

• Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-2585-0.
• Mackesy, Piers (1993) [1964]. The War for America: 1775–1783. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-8192-9.– Highly regarded examination of British strategy and leadership. An introduction by John W. Shy with his biographical sketch of Mackesy.

Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Named RS v. Browser hits

You have managed to cite to a mere handful of sources which explicitly use "Anglo-French War" for the subject content of this article and of those several use American Revolutionary War interchangably throughout the text with "Anglo-French War" as Stoker & McMaster do. In contract, Eastfarthingian and I have shown dozens upon dozens that favor the use of American Revolutionary War, which is plainly the common name for the subject content of this article. The article should thus be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War. XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That's one source Gwillhickers; I have quoted more than ten times that number to prove the popular perception of this war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That source is representative of three scholars. The sources you've presented mention Saintes in passing as it involves the actual war for American independence and do not explain how Saintes was "part of" the ARW other than it factored into the peace talks. As was explained several times, an event can be "part of" more than one advent. The Anglo-French wars of the 18th century is the greater picture. That this battle came up during the peace talks, long after Yorktown, is but a footnote in comparison in terms of that actual battle. American independence would still have been achieved if this remote, albeit large, battle never occurred. To determine how much an event was "part of" anything we look to the overwhelming facts. i.e.Saintes was wholly involved between France and Britain in the conflict over Jamaica and its sugar trade. Yet your focus is that it was part of the ARW simply because it was wagered during the settlements between France and Britain after the figting had long ended. Yet we have to deal with an info-box banner in the Battle of the Saintes article that only says it was part of the ARW, which ignores the overwhelming facts surrounding that battle, more than suggesting that it part of nothing else. Sort of ridiculous. In any case, there are still two distinct groups of battles. i.e.Ones fought between France and Britain over possessions in the West Indies -- ones fought for over American independence. Once again, this is why we have dedicated articles for each. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers yes wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; so has many articles regarding periods of Anglo-French Wars#1700s, the argument is about this article in that there are too many articles with same subject - France in the American Revolutionary War and Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War as well as American Revolutionary War. Your quote - ‘’The battle of the Saintes occurred in 1782, between France and Britain, over shipping, trade and possessions, not over American independence’’. Where is the source that says this? This is your own opinion, it dosen't matter if Americans were present or not. It was the same fleet led by the same Admiral at the siege of Yorktown. Three sources compared to many sources I have used - all of course RS and with peer review. all Also - ‘’Once again, being mentioned in peace talks doesn't make that battle as one fought for American independence, so I'm afraid that's as far as the "part of" the ARW claim has ever gone.’’ is again a point of your own opinion, and refuting authors such as Samual Flagg Bemis, David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro, Perkins, Anthony Page and Charles Botta. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan and XavierGreen: As noted before, (1) You list few scholarly books buried in word-wall lists of copy-pasted “hits”, a deprecated method of POV “research”. One-off browser searches, are unreliable, they cannot be replicated, and they include untrue snippets to pad your “nearly all historians” claims; (2) You have previously provided links to RS, however on inspection they explicitly contradict your wp:error purporting “Global ARW historiography of POV” versus the historical “Global-Euro-war on Britain, the “War of the American Revolution (1788-1783(4)” (Clodfelter 1991), also known as the “Bourbon War of 1778” (Mahan 1890). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That is hypocritical as you also you also list few scholarly books buried in word-wall lists of copy-pasted “hits”, as such in your same method of quoting the so called terms, Anglo-French war 1778 or Bourbon war 1778. Not only that they are only used by very few authors. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I directly quote from RS that you have named and used here, and nothing more is added on my part; I only added the 10 Pulitzer Prize winners and three nominees by name because you referenced Pulitzer prize-winning as an indicator of "prominent advocates" for an ARW scope-of-war. You did. I have made no browser search list, that method is acknowledge by XavierGreen, and applied by you, not me, I deprecate them by linked reference and direct quotes from Wikipedia:Search engine test.

We are meant to have a reasonable discussion in wp:good faith using the information from our mutually-agreed-to-RS: Mahan, Clodfelter, and Mackesy, for starters. What does it mean for the process if you now dismiss these texts we were supposed to hold in common, if you now dismiss them all as "a very few authors" of an imaginary "browser search hits list"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we are, also using using the information from our mutually-agreed-to-RS: Samual Flagg Bemis, David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro, Perkins, Anthony Page and Charles Botta. As you can see they are many. What's more you used direct quotes from Wikipedia:Search engine test with regards to Mahan, Clodfelter, and Mackesy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not find Mahan, Clodfelter and Mackesy among a personal search that produced your novelist, your anonymous blogger, and your sports museum director, all purported by you to be "RS" here. I found those scholars and their works in a reading list from Lord Cornwallis on the "international perspective" of the American Revolution; that is different than your term-search with unreliable results.

So, when wp:editors click on your links, they find no mention of Congress directing the foreign policy made at French and Spanish royal court to "spread the American Revolution worldwide". Congress is not the agent of history directing France and Spain to war against Britain for a Spanish Gibraltar and a French Jamaica. No source says so, you POV make that up. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You are guilty of doing the same. I did not once say that Congress is not the agent of history directing France and Spain to war against Britain for a Spanish Gibraltar and a French Jamaica. I also didn't state that there was any intent to spread the American Revolution worldwide. That is your POV. Also you don't find Japanese policy spreading Nazism in the Far East during WWII. Congress is trying to make Britian force to give her independence and find an end to the war through diplomacy. What's more they're trying to balance their alliance with France that is until Britian successfully cuts the alliance open. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No, when editors click on my links they read RS author quotes that distinguish between two (2) wars against Britain 1778-1783. One (1) is an insurrection of British subjects, one (1) is imperial rivalry by nation-states. You do not do the same, you carelessly conflate the two wars without document evidence. There is only mystical POV "spreading war worldwide" without human agency, "connecting dots where there are no connections".

- Congress aims for independence from Britain, with or without France. France breaks the joint peace-making first. Vergennes secretly tries for an 'American settlement' in London without the Americans. Britain's agency is that Shelburne shares the evidence: the French seek a US boundary at the Proclamation Line, while Congress had adopted a war aim for west to the Mississippi. The American mission had two former Presidents of Congress; they followed the Act of Congress rather than to persist with a feckless ally who shrank from a united front: the French had chosen Spain over America.

- Historians read of the French betrayal in American mission minutes: a document; Wikipedia has the shared map from Shelburne's diary: a document. The clever British do not "successfully cut the alliance open" by duping naif colonials. Rather, the French break the Franco-American alliance for themselves with a misplaced realpolitik that lays the foundation of the Second British Empire. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WRONG, when editors click on my links they read RS author quotes that represents only one war against Britain 1775-1783 and that being an insurrection of British subjects as well as imperial rivalry by nation-states taking advantage of the chaos in America. This is clearly indistinguishable with the Peace of Paris when all parties (except the Dutch - 1784) signed on September 3, 1783 the OFFICIAL end of the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) NO EVIDENCE: THE PROBLEM ALL ALONG. Please provide the link to an archived document, "Peace of Paris" signed by the Americans, indicating that Congress had the power to allocate the possession or partition of Gibraltar among the Euro great powers in Paris (not Versailles) as of September 1783; you cannot.

- (2) Previously I posted linked archives with English translations of two treaties allocating Euro great power imperial possessions worldwide, but they were without American signatories. The two treaties taken together ended Bourbon-British war on land and at sea globally: (a) the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles 1783, and (b) the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles 1783. Nevertheless, let me pause here; I will look forward in wp:good faith to your linked reply for the alternative to my results from a different wp:rs source online.

- (3) Though there are a FEW Brits who lump all wars against Britain into one war for the period as a convenience in their parochial discussion of Westminster diplomatic history at Oxford and Cambridge dinning halls, there are FEWER French RS historians who accept your POV that the "official end" of their ancien regime war on Britain for empire worldwide was brought about by the Dutch six month after His most Catholic Majesty sealed it in writing to the effect that the war was over for the French, for the moment. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal denied a 2nd time

Eastfarthingan, You were given a second opportunity to make the case for a merge, and once it again it didn't work out. As a result of your second attempt all that was accomplished was a rehashing of arguments that dragged on for months. Now that Rosguill has closed out the discussion it was appropriate that the notice to merge be removed. Yet you've put the merge notice back and seem to want to go through the same ordeal for a third time. I removed it again. If you seek to initiate a third merge attempt, please follow proper procedure this time, inform everyone on the talk page, and add another merge notice with the proper date. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)