Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Return to the info box

I. COLLAPSE LIST German Principalities

In the Info Box, are we generally agreed in a consensus as Canute and I are in the Talk thread above,

• to create a collapsable list of the German principalities and their flags serving in North America,

comparable to that provided for the listed Indian tribes aligned with the US and with Britain?

- BTW, I fear I have not figured out how to implement the "collapsible list".

Thanks in advance for "your" (pl.), y'alls, you's-guys, you-ins, assistance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

II. RS "Mercenary Princes" (Lowell)

Yes, there are six flags for the various German mercenaries, yet only one each for America, Britain, France and Spain. This is a clear due-weight issue. The German mercenaries were soldiers for hire, not committed in terms of allegiance to their country, as were the British and Americans — nor did these mercenaries have any genuine concerns for/against American independence. Is there one German mercenary who stands out like Washington, Gates, Howe, Cornwallis, or Lafayette? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers I would definitely word that differently. The typical German soldier was not "for hire." They may have already been in service, or may have been recruited, or may have been conscripted against their will. While in North America, they fought under the flags of their own states, and under their own commanders. They were paid by their own princes (who were paid by the Great Britain). When you say they were "soldiers for hire" and "not committed in terms of allegiance to their country," that gives the strong impression that they volunteered to serve in the British forces. This is absolutely not the case. It's one of the great misunderstandings of the war that are still common today, so we need to choose our words carefully. Canute (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: at our Canadian-editor provided RS Davenport (1937), Indexed at p. 217, we have “Mercenaries, British treaties for (1776-78)”. There are six (6) listed: Anhalt-Zerbst, Brandenburg-Anspach, Brunwick, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau, and Waldeck. Hanover is omitted from European Treaties bearing on the history of the United States. Argumentative Talk posts without RS backup cannot find consensus here to expand the six British supplemental infantry who were "Subsidy Treaty" conscripts furnished by "mercenary princes" (Lowell). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hanover is a special case because their prince was George III and they never sailed to North America to avoid conflicts of interest. But they relieved British troops, who were then free to fight elsewhere. The weight we give Hanover is directly tied to the weight we give Gibraltar, but I'm weary of that endless argument without decision. Canute (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The various german contingents fighting on the British side were enlisted members of the militaries of their home states. We already discussed this in depth above, and my comments above stand here.XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Canute: The idea of "soldiers for hire" and "not committed in terms of allegiance to their country," isn't something that adds up to the idea that they volunteered. In any case, the lede in the Hessian (soldier) article says "... by hiring out their professional armies to other European countries in 18th century wars." Did not Britain provide the capital for their service? Would the mercenaries have lined up to fight for the British otherwise? Granted, the Hessian soldiers were not paid directly, the various German states received the money. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:I'd prefer not to cite Hessian, but the main issue is how it reads to the average Wikipedia visitor. Yes, the German princes volunteered their armies and signed treaties which compensated them in various ways for their army's service in support of Great Britain. But Great Britain did not pay the Soldiers, they paid the states. The individual states then paid their own Soldiers, who marched (and in at least one case, sailed) under their own German flags and were commanded by their own German officers. The Soldiers were not paid, contracted mercenaries who "lined up to fight for the British," despite colonial propaganda to the contrary. They were professional Soldiers and conscripts. The U.S. propaganda persists to this day, though, even showing up on multiple Wikipedia articles; we have to have this debate every year or so, it seems. This creates a great deal of misunderstanding to the "average reader," which is why we need to be careful about the words we use. Canute (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, Hanover's negligible involvement in the fight for/against independence seems to have the same weight for this article as Gibraltar. Remote at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Since the info-box has the flags of six different German states, should not we also include flags for the various states and their militias? If one flag is sufficient for the state militias then it goes that one single German flag should likewise suffice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an option for us; there was no "German flag" at the time. Canute (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no flags for state militias in the infobox. Only each particular belligerent polity is listed.XavierGreen (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, there was no state called "Germany" in 1775 through 1783, rather instead there were hundreds of independent principalities that carried out their affairs completely independent from each other.XavierGreen (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No one said that Germany was a state, and no one said there are U.S. state flags in the info box. The info box has flags for the countries involved in the war for/against American independence. i.e.America, Britain, France, etc. Yet out of the hundreds of independent states in Germany, we list six state flags simply because a portion of their armies were hired by Britain. War was not declared on individual German states, they came after the fact and, again, were only hired mercenaries. Did the various U.S. state militias fly their state flags, or did they march under the American flag? Did the Hessians, under the command of Britain, fly their individual state flags when they marched into battle, or did they march under the British flag? When the Hessians signed on under British command, they were merely components for hire under the British flag — they were not fighting for the fate of their given states – they were fighting for Britain, so to speak. The fate of the given German states involved was not affected, win or lose. Baron Von Stuben and Casimir Pulaski fought for the Americans, yet there is no Polish flag in the info box. Why? Because they fought under the American flag, for America and its cause, unlike the Hessians, who conversely would not have done so unless the given German states were paid. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)\

The German armies did not march under a British flag. They were recruited and/or impressed by their own states (or their neighbors), marched under their own flags and received orders from their own commanders using their own manual of arms, and were paid by their own rulers. They were not simple lead sponges who filled gaps in the British lines. They fought as allies of the British the same way any other semi-autonomous nation might send their armies to the aid of an ally, because their head of state told them to. Their flags are shown because the states were committed by treaty to the British cause and fought under those flags in North America. It's an interesting point you make on the US states, however. True, they largely marched under their own militia flags early in the war, and even late into the war Washington lamented that they didn't have a unified national Standard for the Continental Army. But they gradually fought as one nation and national flags of different types evolved over the course of the war. I believe we're comparing apples to oranges between the semi-independent duchies and principalities of the Holy Roman Empire in contrast to the free and independent states that formed a union. Canute (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Canute, just to clarify a point: From the various accounts of Hessian involvements I've read, they worked in coordination with and took commands from the British. Two armies working completely independent of the other, esp in the same battles, would have been a recipe for disaster. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely correct. The armies worked together. But they were distinct armies. They had to be, really, as the German Soldiers didn't know British drill or language. In some cases the British supplied the arms because they already had stores and established supply chains, but it was impractical to put British uniforms on them and fill the lines. Instead, they kept them under German commanders and they marched under their own flags, which was a source of pride but also (as you said) another way to coordinate large movements on a battlefield. There are also a few notable battles where an Army from Hesse or Brunswick fought completely independent of British involvement. I'm talking too much, I know, but I just want to clarify that German speaking people were generally not standing in line and volunteering to serve in the British Army. They were recruited or conscripted to serve in German armies in North America as allies of their old friend Great Britain.Canute (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of the German principalities offered to send troops unconditionally, as indicated in the sources previously provided above. Your assertion that none of the German states would have committed troops to the conflict without financial remuneration to their governments is therefore blatantly false. Several of the rulers of the german principalities were close relatives of George III, and thus were committed to the conflict partly out of familial loyalty. Your assertions regarding what flags various individuals fought under is utterly meaningless. Very few German principalities had national flags in 1775, as a result on wikipedia articles relating to conflicts involving german states prior to the napoleonic era the infoboxes use the arms of the particular german state involved. This has all been argued to death multiple times before, the current section of the infobox relating to this was established through lengthy debate and consensus.XavierGreen (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Rather than making references to endless and repetitive discussions of the past, it would be nice if you actually provided the source and page number that supports the idea that the Germans fought "unconditionally", so we can weigh them against other sources. The debates to which you refer occurred more than three years ago, and if the issues were "argued to death multiple times" then clearly there was indeed much disagreement amid the so called consensus to which you refer – the same consensus that made a conflagulated mess out of this British - centric article, as has been outlined for you ( 1, 2, 3, etc ) numerous times now. It's quite debatable that the Germans, sent in response to the heavy British losses at Bunker Hill, and also sent to Gibraltar and Minorca, would have fought for nothing, simply because of a family relation, and indeed the mercenaries, per their German states, were paid. In any case, consensus, real or assumed, can not ignore due-weight and NPOV issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder, our consensus is NOT to include Hanover in the ARW – whose mercenary ‘’treaty of subsidy’’ with Britain is not only NOT a "treaty of alliance" as some have misstated here, but (1) Hanover's troops are NOT sent to America as are the others, where the Thirteen Colony insurrection is taking place. Just as the Duke George William Frederick of Hanover, will not send his serfs to an unpopular war in America, the same man, as King George III of Britain will not conscript for the American insurrection among subjects the United Kingdom.

(2) But the same Prince does conscript subjects successfully amidst widespread British popular support with the onset of the Anglo-French War (1778), when at the credible threat of French-Spanish invasion, His Majesty suggests arming local militias with pikes throughout the realm. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Gibraltar is not in the ARW mix. As of this month May 2020, there is no longer endless argument without decision. Now, all editors of wp:good faith in these threads accept CANADIAN EDITOR-supplied RS Davenport, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States, online at HathiTrust. THREE POINTS OF REPLY.

To begin chronologically, we have the mutually accepted archive at the Library of Congress: (1) US independence is found in UK-US “Definitive Treaty of Peace” at Paris 1783, ending the insurrection between THEM on the North American continent, the American Revolutionary War.

point-by-point discussion :::Gibraltar is not referenced. France and Spain are NOT signatory – they are D. Hartley, John Adams, B. Franklin, John Jay for the US, and appointed for his Britannic Majesty King George III, David Hartley, Member of Parliament.

(2) The Siege of Gibraltar is found in the UK-France Peace Treaty of Versailles 1783. Art. 8. “The [French] king restores to the [British] King, the islands of Gibraltar … “, ending the war between THEM, the Anglo-French War (1778). Canadian-supplied RS Davenport Doc. 171.

point-by-point discussion :::After the UK-US treaty is signed, US independence is endorsed by France; US is NOT signatory - they are Gravier de Vergennes for France, and Manchester for UK. p. 152-154.

(3) The Spanish Floridas are found found in UK-Spanish Treaty of Versailles 1783, ending the war between THEM, the imperial great power Anglo-French War (1778), Spain formally since 1779. Canadian-supplied RS Davenport Doc. 174.

point-by-point discussion US independence is NOT referenced; Gibraltar is NOT; US is NOT signatory - they are El Conde De Aranda for Spain, and Manchester for UK. p. 158-161.

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

III. GB "German" ally as "Subsidy Treaty Germanies"

There is a wp:error in our Info Box, misreporting several “Treaties of subsidy” among signatories in several threads here at Talk, and misrepresented as "allies" in the Info Box, as though the contracts for conscripts ("blood for coin" -Lowell) were Treaties of Alliance, which Canadian editor-supplied RS shows they were NOT.

As @XavierGreen: notes, "there was no state called 'Germany'". As @Canute: has it, "the typical German soldier was not for hire ... to serve in the British forces. @Gwillhickers: replies the various German states received the money ... to march under the British flag. The treaties specified troops would be committed in America at the direction of the UK King, and they would fight under UK field commanders, while there was provision for petite units such as companies or batteries to be officered by their native Germans.

Info Box Proposed: Change British ally "German" to "Subsidy Treaty Germanies" to answer all three points simultaneously. REFERENCE Canadian-supplied RS Francis G. Davenport & Charles O. Paulin, @ European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States, p.vii.

RATIONALE: Duke George of Hanover "alliance" v. King George III of UK "subsidy" ::(a) Unlike lawful treaties of alliance by Duke George William Frederick as a German princeling among Holy Roman Empire provincial rulers for self-defense within the boundaries of the HRE - - - vs. other roles the man assumed, such as UK King George III in the ARW,

(b) lawful “treaties of subsidy” were contracted for thousands of foreign out-of-British-Empire involuntary conscripts whose “mercenary princes” were paid for their exclusive service in North American to put down the Thirteen Colony insurrection. These payments from the British Treasury began with subsidy payments before troop deployment, and payment to the princes extended for a calendar year after the conscripts were recalled to Europe. [Aside: nearly half the ARW campaign survivors broke their feudal contract to stay in North America as US citizens.]

List six (6) RS ”Treaties of subsidy” # Doc. #157. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Brunswick for service in America, January 9, 1776. Indexed: “Brunswick, British mercenary treaty of (1776)”, p. 212.

1. Doc. #157. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Hesse-Cassel January 15, 1776. Indexed: “Hesse-Cassel, treaties for mercenaries”, p. 215.
2. Doc. #158. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Hesse-Hanau for service in America, February 15, 1776. Indexed: “Hesse-Hanau, treaties for mercenaries”, p. 215.
3. Doc. #159. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Waldeck for service in America, April 20, 1776. Indexed:
4. Doc. #160. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Hesse-Hanau for service in America, April 25, 1776.
5. Doc. #161. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Hesse-Cassel for service in America, December 11, 1776.
6. Doc. #162. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Brandenburg-Anspach for service in America, February 1, 1777. Indexed: “Brandenburg-Anspach, treaties for mercenaries”, p. 212.
7. Doc. #163. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Hesse-Hanau, February 10, 1777.
8. Doc. #167. Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and Anhalt-Zerbst for service in America, April 23, 1778. Indexed: “Anhalt-Zerbst, British treaty for mercenaries”, p. 211.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and collapsed the list of German states in the Infobox, as has been recommended and discussed here. (Sorry, occasionally we have to stop discussing changes and start making changes.) The term generally agreed upon in other Wikipedia articles is "auxiliaries," so that's how I phrased it here. This has been a source of some bitter debate in the articles directly relating to the German states; I recommend we keep the debate there and follow their lead here. Certainly we have other decisions we need to make, there's no sense opening yet another debate on this talk page. Canute (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Canute: Thanks for the Infobox assist.

AGREE. per wp:Policies and guidelines: The encyclopedia should be consistent in the [naming] content that it provides.

And ... also ... per wp:Policies and guidelines#Content: Be clear. Be plain, direct, unambiguous and specific. Footnotes may be used for further clarification. THEREFORE, as an antidote to "The U.S. propaganda persists to this day, though, even showing up on multiple Wikipedia articles" correctly observed by Canute.

- - - although I'd rephrase the observation as, "The 'Patriot propaganda' against the foreign element in a standing professional army quartered in American homes, has been uncritically adopted by most American historians in a shorthand that misconstrues the actual service of an individual German soldier employed by George III to put down the rebellion in North America (of whom, perhaps 20-30% of the survivors became US citizens)." Or, as an American 'New Historian' with a 'bottom-up' approach to history might say, "They's our peeps." i.e. "THE OPPRESSED of world history" - Which I am not, and I would not do.

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: At Infobox "German Auxiliaries", ADD

point-by-point discussion :::"Note: These six principalities of the Holy Roman Empire contracted "Treaties of Subsidy" between their respective princes and Great Britain providing for military units and conscript replacements to make war in America at the direction of King George III. fn#1 Authorities make a distinction between (1) "mercenary princes" criticized by Whig opponents in Parliament for their "blood for coin" policy, versus (2) the individual soldiers, who as serf conscripts were involuntarily shipped overseas and paid by their feudal lords with British subsidy. fn#2

Footnote #1: Davenport, Francis G. & Charles O. Paulin, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States, Vol.IV 1715-1815 (1937) Carnegie Institution of Washington, ISBN 978-1584774228, also online at HaithiTrust, p.vi-vii. viewed May 25, 2020.

Footnote #2: Lowell, Edward J. The Hessians and the other German auxiliaries of Great Britain in the revolutionary war (1884). Harper & Bros. ISBN 978-1163287491, also online at Internet Archive. Viewed May 23, 2020."

- p.s. Lowell recounts an instance of a Brunswick contingent for overseas reporting three soldiers questioning, "Why serve in America?" The army was assembled in a field on parade and the three were shot before them. The army, both deployed and home guard, shouted in one voice: "For America!" - to the prince's reported satisfaction. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Infobox edit: I added a revision of the proposal here:

point-by-point discussion :These six principalities within the Holy Roman Empire contracted "Treaties of Subsidy" between their respective princes and Great Britain to provide military units and conscript replacements to make war in America at the direction of King George III. Authorities make a distinction between the German soldiers and their princes. (1) "Mercenary princes" personally profited greatly in the exchange. These were criticized in Parliament's Whig Opposition for their "blood for coin" policy to war against Englishmen in America. (2) The individual German soldiers were serf conscripts at the command of their prince. They were involuntarily shipped overseas to be paid by their feudal lords at the low British rate one hundred years old. They were led and disciplined by their native officers and they marched under their homeland flag.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen just noted the INFOBOX STYLE that makes use of links to notables without explanatory "notes" for the reader to excerpt bio elements focused on the ARW. So in that spirit, this passage has been edited in the article Infobox for brevity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done at [1]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

IV. US ally France

There are several items in the Infobox that need remediation as wp:errors.

point-by-point discussion The first relates to the practice of sourcing contributions with other Wikipedia articles. To begin, France is said to be a belligerent, noted by link to a Wikipedia article.

This can be remediated to avoid misdirecting the reader who is not familiar with the 1778 US-French independence-only defensive-treaty. They may otherwise anachronistically apply their understanding of 1600-1700s European “Treaties of Alliance” to extend two or more monarchial sovereign's mutual imperial interests in continental Europe and abroad at the expense of a designated imperial foe.

Proposed: Info Box US ally, CHANGE TO: " Kingdom of France by 1788 defensive treaty [Note]".

[Note]: “The 1788 Treaty of Alliance between France and the US provided in Article I: If, during the “present war between the US and England”, were a war to break out between France and Great Britain – the next time was that same year, the Anglo-French War (1778) – France and the US will militarily aid one another; Article II: this French-US treaty is a defensive alliance with "the direct and essential end" to maintain the independence of the US and its sovereignty in North America. See Library of Congress archives, Treaty of Alliance with France 1778, page 6 and 8. [/note]

p.s. *** The French-US defensive treaty for US independence as a Thirteen Colony republic within North American territory ceded by Great Britain is NOT a US treaty to engage "jingo" American imperialism (Lockwood) akin to German auxiliaries overseas, IN THIS CASE to expand French colonial empire through worldwide joint-expeditions - - - either BEFORE OR AFTER acquiring its independence from Britain - - - TO INCLUDE Indian provinces adjacent Mysore, as per one purported RS put forward here at the AWR Talk, which "led to the extinction" of indigenous Australian civilization (Lockwood (2019) @ Introduction). ***

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

TVH, many thanks for providing sources clarifying the various points involving the Hessians. Canute, thanks for tending to the half dozen German state flags in the info-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear if you want to change the link for France in the Infobox or if you literally want to change it to say "Kingdom of France by 1788 defensive treaty." If the latter, I'd vote against it, because we don't do that for any other nation in any other article. It'd be fine in the article, just not in the infobox. But I'm not sure that's what you mean. Canute (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, better not in the text of the Infobox. Agreed ... not in the Infobox text, but as a note. I hope to turn to the narrative soon. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Article edit-1: I made a post with a revision of the proposal here.

point-by-point discussion :The 1778 French-US treaty that formally led to France in the American Revolutionary War, was a defensive alliance with "the direct and essential end", to (1) maintain the independence of the US from the Britain, and (2) maintain US sovereignty in British-ceded North American territory (see Art. II).

- Those goals were met at the British-US treaty in Paris, where George III acknowledged US independence and that of each of thirteen former colonies, and then ceded British North American territory to US sovereignty in perpetuity. The French-US treaty as a military alliance was to become effective were a war to break out between France and Great Britain (see Art. I).

- Britain learned of the French-US trade agreement, and immediately initiated the Anglo-French War (1778). Spain joined the French against the British at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) to conquer Gibraltar, Minorca and the Floridas from the British; it expanded its covert military aid to the US to weaken Britain. When the Dutch continued trade with the new Thirteen States, Britain initiated the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in 1780 and swept Dutch commerce from the Atlantic. Once at war, the Dutch could not join the nations trading with the US in the First League of Armed Neutrality with Russia, Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Norway, Prussia, Austria, and Portugal.

- The British ended its “Bourbon war” with separate peace agreements with the Bourbon king of France and the Bourbon king of Spain at Versailles in 1783; it ended its war with the Netherlands in 1784.

As revisions are made in the article narrative to align with chronology and RS, Infobox notes can be shortened. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen just noted the INFOBOX STYLE that makes use of links to notables without explanatory "notes" for the reader to excerpt bio elements focused on the ARW. So in that spirit, this passage has been edited in the article Infobox for brevity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Edit-2. per Rjensen critique on lengthy Infobox notes, per Canute critique that WP Infobox style does not use "defensive treaty" to qualify a "belligerent" list (nor is such a phrase used to visually crowd the German auxiliary "treaties of subsidy" here), and per XavierGreen critique on possible NPOV issue for further discussion here,

point-by-point discussion :rev. 2 note at Infobox, Belligerents, France: "The 1778 French-US treaty that formally led to France in the American Revolutionary War, was a defensive alliance with "the direct and essential end", to (1) maintain the independence of the US from the Britain, and (2) maintain US sovereignty in British-ceded North American territory (see Art. II). The French-US treaty as a military alliance was to become effective were a war to break out between France and Great Britain (see Art. I). which subsequently did."'

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done at [2]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

V. US & GB constitutional leaders

Infobox edit add: Following the lead of Gwillhickers adding the military commanders in North America for US and GB, I added the constitutional leaders for the US & GB here.

THE CRITERIA were related to THREE stages of the ARW.

point-by-point discussion :(1) The constitutional leaders of civil unrest leading to the conflict: US by First Continental Congress, notably Peyton Randolph and John Adams, and GB by King George III.

(2) The constitutional leaders initiating and carrying out hostilities: US in the Second Continental Congress and its successors, notably John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson from start to finish, and GB Prime Minister Lord North for conducting the ARW against the US until Yorktown, when British public and parliamentary support evaporated.

(3) The constitutional leaders initiating and carrying out the GB-US cease-fire and permanent armistice, peace terms, US and each colony independence, and US sovereignty unilaterally granted by GB to the US from its North American Empire: US Benjamin Franklin (with a note for the other signatories to the Treaty of Paris (1783): New England John Adams of Massachusetts, Middle Colony John Jay of New York & past President of Congress, and Southern Colony John Laurens of South Carolina & past President of Congress), and GB Prime Ministers, Lords Rockingham, Shelburne and Portland.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Per Rjensen revert here, “excessive detail--each person has a full biography and details are not useful here.”

Revised edit-2:

Infobox: Commanders and leaders

US leaders	GB leaders
Peyton Randolph	King George III
John Hancock	Lord North
Benjamin Franklin	Lord Shelburne

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox add: at "Commanders and leaders", per Talk #Revision Edit-2 here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Two line RELOCATE proposal

At Infobox, "Commanders and Leaders", with the constitutional officials among the BRITISH: (1) King George, (2) war Prime Minister Lord North, and (3) peace Prime Minister Lord Shelburne - - -

point-by-point discussion ::the British military Commanders list now has TWO redundancies: (1) George III, and (2) Lord North - - - > >

INSERT: two who are properly accounted for in their roles as British constitutional leaders, King and Tory war-PM

- - - RATHER THAN military theater or field commanders.

posted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside: Although he is in in Lord North's government at Parliament, Lord Germain is appropriately placed among military commanders because he wrote prolifically to field commanders assuming personal direction of strategy, tactics and supply for theater, army and force contingent operations.

Propose remove lines in the military "commanders" column for "George III", and "Lord North", but keep them both as currently found in this subsection "Infobox add Revision Edit-2" and in the article at [this edit in the constitutional "leaders" section for the British. @Gwillhickers:

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion and Comment [none for a week]

 Done at [3]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Lord Shelburne

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Rjensen: - Adding the names of political and Constitutional leaders to the info-box seems okay, (the biographical footnotes, however, were a bit much for purposes of an info-box), but I'm wondering about Franklin and Shelburn. Though Franklin had much influence before, during and after the war, esp at the Treaty of Paris, he was not exactly a leader. Shelburn didn't become Prime Minister until 1782, and only because of the death of P.M.Rockingham, where he soon lost most of his support by former Rockingham supporters. He was only the P.M. for eight months.  i.e. We should consider the removal of these two names. Speaking of notables, I also agree with @Canute:, that we should limit the names of commanders to those most notable, lest we end up with an info-box that extends the length of much of the article. As for commanders in the Western theater, however, it would seem we should at least mention one commander on each side, i.e. G.R. Clark and Henry Hamilton. The addition of these two commanders, imo, would complete the list of commanders we should have listed in the info-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Rats. Rats. I meant the sub-sub-section title to be RELOCATE proposal (not, not remove). Silly slip up.

If I can establish the notability of constitutional officers, I am happy to postpone extended discussion of who they are to be. I do think that George III and Lord North were more POLICY drivers of suppressing the Thirteen Colony insurrection in the same way the Jacobites had been in earlier risings --->so they should be move above the line<---, and Germain was more the orchestrator GRAND-TACTICS for British military affairs --->so he should be below the line<--- with Howe et al.

point-by-point discussion :::I think a bit more unpacking Franklin along with MA Adams, NY Jay & SC Lauren; two of them past Presidents of Congress - - - and Franklins long-term maneuvering, networking and backstage deals would lead you to see his efforts at achieving British concessions greater wp:significance. Especially (1) the fake-out about the US dragging on the war to get the British to agree to complete independence, (2) the Congressional enacted agreement on Shelburne's offer by April 1782, and (3) getting a done deal set WITHOUT consultation with the French, whose proposed peace map had the Northwest Territory left to Britain - - a move that would have given Canada a British-client buffer-state for Indian allies, and probably saved Shelburne's Prime Ministership in the short run. Oh, and the French would have held up the Americans to shut them out of the Newfoundland fishery.

As for Shelberne, the solid Whig backbencher was in Opposition for years, not months. He "cleaned house" of Tory partisans throughout his government, so he could have a decisive government to achieve his purpose -- US Congressional approval by April 1783, without French encumbrance. - - - The British interest in ceding the Northwest Territory was that he correctly anticipated US citizen populating the region, becoming a breadbasket for Britain, and a substantial consumer of British manufactured goods on the global scale, apart from various Continental wars and blockades that might (and did) occur in the future.

Thank you for reconsidering adding G.R. Clark. Perhaps he can replace the martyr hero who is listed now as a notable commander in the ARW, militia captain John Parker who was engaged in the fighting around Boston, dead on September 17, 1775 before the Declaration of Independence. I think the bronze statue to him as a Minute Man may have been the model for the USPO commemorative stamp, I'm not sure.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the info-box in the Shelburne article, Shelburn was P.M. from July 4, 1782 to March 26, 1783, his term ending six months before the Revolutionary War officially ended. In any event, does his influence or leadership, in terms of the Revolutionary War, his cleansing of pro-war Tories from the House notwithstanding, merit that his name be mentioned in the info-box here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, some background.

point-by-point discussion SHELBURNE fell out of favor with King George III and the Lord Bute clique when he joined WILLIAM PITT THE ELDER in defending Whig MP, JOHN WILKES (who favored universal manhood suffrage) against a Tory-sponsored “general warrant”, and later expulsion. Wilkes was already established as a hero among the Patriot American press.

- During the Seven Years’ War ending 1763, Whig MP SHELBURNE openly opposed the King’s Tory government in Parliament, arguing that George III had on various and continuing occasions, acted unconstitutionally and against the laws of Parliament. A decade later, he joined PITT in denouncing Lord North’s colonial policy. In June 1768, the Massachusetts General Court incorporated Shelburne, and in 1775 the Patriots of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress incorporated SHELBURNE as a town in his honor.

- - Our Wikipedia editor's top ARW leaders presently include hero-martyr Captain John Parker, who has a 20th century middle school in Massachusetts named for him, but no town was named contemporaneously in honor for Parker's wp:significant contributions to English liberty in the colonies, as was done for SHELBURNE, even before the Declaration.

- SHELBURNE joined the Rockingham Whigs opposing Lord North’s prosecution of the war. After the loss of a British army at Saratoga, Shelburne joined the Opposition call for a total withdrawal British troops from the Thirteen Colonies. At the downfall of Lord North, SHELBURNE would agree to join Rockingham’s cabinet only on condition that the King would recognize the United States independence prior. With that assurance, SHELBURNE joined, and then he was named Rockingham's successor to carry that US independence policy forward.

- SHELBURNE subsequently lost his own office as Prime Minister in the Tory-led firestorm surrounding his government's draft treaty granting the Northwest Territory to the US - - - meant to be a manufacturing market and British bread basket alternative to the Continent against future French-Spanish blockades. NEVERTHELESS, the successor Prime Minister PORTLAND, followed through with all the SHELBURNE treaty provisions that were agreed to by Act of Congress in April 1783, including US independence and sovereignty to the Mississippi River - - - two weeks after Shelburne was unseated, but before others could modify his intended result. Noteworthy.

So, SHELBURNE should be on our list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough. It seems Shelburne, after all, was one of the major factors in getting the Crown overall to accept American independence. Thanks for sharing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• The names of George Rogers Clark and Henry Hamilton have been added to the info-box. Hopefully this will complete the list of names that merit inclusion there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Further reading :

• Fitzmaurice, Edmund George Petty-Fitzmaurice, 1st baron Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, afterwards first marquess of Landsdowne (1875), Macmillan and Co., London.
• Clark, George Rogers and James Alton James, ed. George Rogers Clark papers, 1781-1784 (1912), Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield, Ill.
• Swem, Earl G. "Newly Discovered George Rogers Clark Material" in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review [jstor=1896942], Vol. 1, June 1914, p. 95-97 Oxford University Press.

Also, we MUST embrace good scholarship found in our Canadian-supplied RS (although we should not uncritically swallow every interpretation outside mainstream scholarship on the wp:fringe).

One such source proffered as a Euro-centered anecdote to 19th century Bancroft-Patriot "propaganda"is: Andrew Stockley. Britain and France at the Birth of America: The European Powers and the Peace Negotiations of 1782–1783 (2001). Viewed May 29, 2020 at the Google snippet for the Introduction and Chapter 1.

point-by-point discussion :"The peace of 1783 was, in all essential respects, framed during the Shelburne ministry. Shelburne was himself heavily involved in the negotiations." [p.2]; and, "[Vincent] Harlow contends that, given the military situation of the time, it was Shelburne who proved himself the more successful tactician [among vying negotiators]."[p.5] Stockley's book self-proclaimed to be about those negotiators over the years 1782-84 in official and private correspondence that variously represented competing internal interests from within EIGHT nation-states: England, US, France, Spain, Netherlands, Russia, Prussia and Austria. All eight need not be represented in the AWR Infobox, IMO. But British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne should be.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done at [4]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox belligerents

BELLIGERENTS

UNITED STATES co-belligerent: add Thirteen States

At 16:20 29 May 2020, my edit [5], (1) I added a note to the US, and a line for the Thirteen States as suggested by Gwillhickers, and added an explanatory note there to describe their state militia participation, and state legislature promotions in the Continental Army during the ARW.

(2) what is the code to properly render a link to that edit? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=American_Revolutionary_War&type=revision&diff=959602233&oldid=959478682 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

At Infobox, the copy edit [6], "Thirteen States" category to a collapsed list in the same style as collapsed lists of "German Auxiliaries" and "Indians".

Each of the state names listed are linked to the article on "[STATE] in the American Revolution".

- p.s. To my knowledge, most states in the US do not have state flags until mid-19th to mid-20th century. At Flag and Seal of Virginia, a first state banner is noted in use by Confederates at the onset of the American Civil War (featuring state name, seal, motto). Then an official banner for Virginia in the United States is adopted the year of the Progressive-Jim-Crow Constitution of 1912. It is a Virginia flag featuring the two sides of the official seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The article then notes its 1950 standardized specification.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

UNITED STATES as belligerent

At [7], I added a footnote to support RESTORE state relationships to GB: "Parliament" separation by June 1776, PRIOR to Independence from the Crown and people of GB, at the Declaration on July 4, 1776.

At the Infobox Belligerent list, “United States”, THE NOTE now reads: “The American Revolutionary War was primarily fought by the Thirteen Colonies that became thirteen states independent of British Parliament.[fn] Those thirteen states joined to become the United States when each of their legislatures sent delegates to the Second Continental Congress to declare independence as "one people" to dissolve the “political bands” connecting them to the people of Great Britain and the British Crown.

footnote: “Interregnum, December 1775, Chapter II,” Hening’s Statutes, Laws of Virginia from 1619, Vol. IX. 1821. Virginia General Assembly, June 12, 1776. Allegiance to the CROWN was maintained; “King-in-Parliament” rule was DISSOLVED and a new local Virginia legislature put in its place, “… unless some regular adequate mode of civil polity is speedily adopted”, in compliance with “the General Congress”.

But the flag flown over the Williamsburg Capitol at the Interregnum GENERAL ASSEMBLY act of independence from PARLIAMENT, was the Grand Union Flag . . . that of the British East India Company, whose Sovereign ruler was King George III. The only difference was that the Grand Union flag had the BEIC canton displaying the Flag of Great Britain turned 90-degrees.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your in depth knowledge, insightful analysis and recent edits. At this point, in light of the facts and overwhelming sources, any contention of an American POV, esp in light of what this article used to read like, comes off a bit insincere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but you see this entry challenged yet again by newbie Roastedturkey at [8], addressed in the section immediately below.

point-by-point discussion ::::I am looking forward to expanding "Aftermath" section to include the US policy for EXPANDED citizenship embracing: (a) Land grants from State legislatures and Congress qualifying thousands of enlisted Continental and militia veterans the vote; (b) 20-30% of the surviving British auxiliary Hessians who settled in the US; (c) "soft" Tories who did not take up arms against the US (with their lands repatriated - - - and in ALL cases, NO British-style "corruption of blood" to further punish their widows, sons and daughters);

(d) Black men, veterans in Continental and militia forces, free and enslaved, granted manumission and land grants by Congress and their states that qualified for the vote; (e) republican revolutionaries from failed causes in Europe, Latin America, and Caribbean; (f) formerly excluded natives including Native-Americans and African-Americans; and (g) the expanding ways enslaved men and women were emancipated in BOTH Northern and Southern states by the REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION - - - a trend reversed in the South by the 1810-1820 period as the vets died off, and the newly introduced barn-sized cotton gins in the Gulf States fueled a domestic slave boom to supply British and some New England textile manufacturers.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SPAIN & NETHERLANDS

Propose: REMOVE Spain and Netherlands from the Infobox list of US "Belligerents/Co-belligerents" in the ARW.

point-by-point discussion ::(1) There is no treaty of military alliance between the US and Spain nor the US and the Netherlands.

(2) The ARW is ended at the Treaty of Paris (1783) with peace between GB and US, providing for US independence and US sovereign territory ceded by no other than GB. France, Spain and the Netherlands are not signatories.

(3) Spain enters the Anglo-French War (1778), initiated by GB at a French trade treaty with the US; that war in turn activates the French-US defensive military treaty Article I for military assistance to guarantee US independence and sovereignty as provided in Article II.

Spain's explicit purpose in joining the French against GB in the Anglo-French War at the French-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), is conquering GB held Gibraltar, Minorca and the Floridas. There is no reference to US independence or sovereignty.

GB makes peace in that separate "Bourbon War" with Bourbon France and Bourbon Spain - see Brit. RS - in two separate treaties, a GB-French Treaty of Versailles (1783-a), and a GB-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783-b). The French cede Gibraltar to GB at Treaty 1783-a, without reference to the US.

Neither the Treaty of Versailles (1783-a) with France nor that of (1783-b) with Spain have any reference to US independence or US sovereign territory ceded by GB to the US. The US is not signatory to either treaty ending the British "Bourbon War" 1778-1783.

(4) There is no "Peace of Paris (1783)" in RS EXCEPT as an historiographic fiction amalgamating four separate GB treaties, a convenient stylistic shorthand reference to the British stand-down from war with four belligerents contemporaneously with their respective shooting warfare overlapping ONLY during 1778-1781 - - - The term is a matter of narrative convenience, includes (a) the end of GB-US war BEFORE (b) the end of the GB-[Bourbon French-Bourbon Spanish] War, and AFTERWARDS (c) the end of GB-Dutch war a year later.

So, we should remove Spain and Netherlands from the list of US belligerents and co-belligerents in the ARW Infobox. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: Also, we must collegially consider two of the three premier * British * scholarly authorities that are the gold standard for English-language scholars worldwide. They are both compendiums synthesizing the preponderance of reliable sources found in mainstream studies in every major European language, for our ARW discussion, scholarship found published in English, French and Spanish. Both of these RS are recently referenced in Talk threads here.

(1) Encyclopaedia Britannica at "American Revolutionary War", and (2) Routledge Publishers, Dictionary of War 1999, “American Revolution (1775-83)”. Both define "American Revolutionary War" as limited to the GB-US conflict over American Independence 1775-1783, ending with the Treaty of Paris (1783) between Britain and the United States. posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SPAIN as ARW belligerent

Spain in the American Revolutionary War, exists for a reason. Practically all sources state that Spain was a belligerent in the American Revolutionary War, whether you believe it or not. That the Netherlands was drawn into the conflict directly as a result of its actions vis a vis its support for the United States is undisputed in the sources as well.XavierGreen (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to XavierGreen, "That the Netherlands was drawn into the conflict directly as a result of its actions vis a vis its support for the United States" : There was no "drawn into war" in a passive voice by unknown agents. The Netherlands traded with the US; the British initiated the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 1780-84, and swept Dutch merchantmen from the Atlantic. The October 1782 Dutch-US treaty was for trade. (1) The Dutch did NOT fight the British for or against US independence, so (2) the Anglo-Dutch war was NOT the American War for Independence.

I acknowledge Spain's contribution to the ARW with my article post on Governor Galvez, and at my proposal to add him to the list of US ARW "Commanders and leaders". CERTAINLY "practically all sources" say that Spain fought Britain in North America for the Floridas to reverse the Treaty of Paris (1763) ending the Seven Years' War. But there was never a Spain-US treaty, nor did Spain endorse the Thirteen Colony insurrection - - during the same years it had several "copy-cat" Creole insurrections against ITS colonial American mercantilism under the "Bourbon Reforms".

point-by-point discussion ::(1) I make reference to the premier British RS scholarly reference for a reason. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA summarizes all mainstream sources on the ARW. At "American Revolutionary War" it states that the two principle belligerents 1775-1783, were GB, treaty-allied with German auxiliaries and Indians, and (2) US, treaty-allied with France and Indians. Peace was made at the Treaty of Paris (1783) with GB and US as signatories, WITHOUT any reference to the others, and none of the others were signatories to the ONE treaty ending the ARW.

(2) From a diplomatic historian perspective, 1689-1815 during the Anglo-French "Second Hundred Years' War",

1780-1782: Britain simultaneously initiated and carried out an Atlantic war, A SHOOTING WAR against FOUR belligerents for THREE years, on (1) US (1775-1781), (2) France (1778-1783), (3) Spain (1779-1783), and (4) Netherlands (1780-1784).

(3) But within the ARW scope, The American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 was between GB & its six German auxiliaries, and the US & its ONE European treaty ally, fought over (a) US independence, and (b) US sovereignty in GB-ceded territory of North America. ALL those fighting GB were NOT "belligerents in the ARW" because they did not fight for or against Britain over US independence and its sovereignty.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, another tricky issue. Spain may have been less interested in the direct cause of US independence, but they certainly contributed to British losses in North America. They provided funding and supplies to the United States throughout the war, and became directly involved in 1779 (Treaty of Aranjuez). They fought the British at the Battle of St. Louis (at the same time the British were also attacking Kentucky), raided as far north as Michigan, captured British and Waldeck troops at Pensacola, and fought in the Caribbean, affecting British colonies and allowing the French to move north and harass the British in the sea off North America. As far as the Infobox itself goes, I have no problem excluding Spain, but only because I think we list too many names, already. Maybe Gálvez? I don't think we should look for more information to cram into the Infobox, though. Canute (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Spain was a principal belligerent in the American Revolutionary War, it was the principal belligerent at Gibraltar and Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780), two major battles of the war in addition to the Gulf Coast Campaign. It needs to be listed as a belligerent in the infobox, i don't think this article would be even a B-Class one if it didn't mention that Spain participated in the war.XavierGreen (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Spain's involvement at Gibraltar has no bearing whatsoever on the American war for independence, esp in terms of being a belligerent in the ARW, as has been outlined and explained on this page numerous times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Spain was a major contributor of the war and actively supported efforts in North America and fought alongside Americans. This is all that is needed to justify leaving them in the info box. --Roastedturkey (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Spain's involvement at Gibraltar, fought for the specific purpose of its control, has no bearing on the American war for independence, esp in terms of being a belligerent in that war, as has been outlined and explained on the Talk page here numerous times. Referring to that campaign as part of the war for/against independence only amounts to another failed British-centric attempt to portray Britain as the center of the universe during the American war for independence, the primary reason why that war was initiated and fought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• While Spain helped with funding the American war effort, most of its conflicts did not occur on American soil. e.g.The Battle of St. Louis, the Gulf Coast campaign (for the principle purpose of keeping the British out of Cuba), the San Juan Expedition in 1780 in Nicaragua, and the reconquest of Florida which Britain had taken and divided in 1763, are primary examples. However, Spain did help George Rogers Clark in the Western theater during the Illinois campaign, but I'm wondering in what capacity, as that page doesn't even mention Spain. Spain also provided funding during the Yorktown campaign which led to Cornwallis' surrender. Other than America and Britain, France was the principle belligerent then. In the Yorktown article Spain is only mentioned in passing reference to Francisco Saavedra de Sangronis who helped with the planning of that campaign. I'm not seeing anything, however, that justifies referring to Spain as a "principal belligerent", in the actual war for independence, compared to Britain, America and France. Like we do with the German auxiliaries, it would seem Spain should be so listed. Also, there doesn't seem to be any viable reason why Spain should be linked to the Enlightenment in Spain article in the info-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

CONCUR with Gwillhickers above.

Conclusion: The ARW is over US independence and sovereignty, 1775-1783, for or against the US or Britain in that matter of insurrection or independence. While the ARW and Bourbon War chronologies overlap, the causes do not. Reply to Canute, XavierGreen, Roastedturkey on June 2 below, reordered for June 5 reply to Canute to better address "Causation and chronology" of the ARW.

Challenge: "SPAIN fighting alongside US"

To Roastedturkey: The Spanish Luisiana Governor Bernardo de Gálvez did CERTAINLY contribute to the ARW by compromising the British military influence in adjacent to the US territorial claims, and HE did “actively support” US forces in both Eastern and Western Theaters substantially assisted by the American born Havana-New Orleans merchant Oliver Pollock. HOWEVER, while some few English colonial-born volunteer US resident settlers and privateers joined Governor Galvez’ expeditions in Spanish and previously held Spanish territory, Spanish troops NEVER "fought alongside" US Continental or state militia troops. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

William PicklesXavierGreen (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Almost. Well, not at all. Pickles was NOT in the US Continental Army, NOT in any state militia. And NOT regarding his naval career:

You recall the intrepid Captain William Pickles, (a) operating an independent command at sea, NOT “fighting alongside” the Spanish; (b) capturing the HMS West Florida, the boarding party commanded by Pickles leading a contingent of the local US Marines, and “American rebels”, NOT “fighting alongside” the Spanish; and

(c) The voyages of the newly named USS Galvestown. At the article, “There are claims that she participated in the siege and capture of Pensacola in March 1781. However, documentary evidence suggests that she arrived in Philadelphia with cargo on 1 June 1780, [NINE MONTHS PRIOR,] and therefore could NOT have participated in this action in March 1781.”

See Raymond J. Martinez, (Pierre George) Rousseau: The Last Days of Spanish New Orleans (2003), p. 15. - - - That is, NOT “fighting alongside” the Spanish who were themselves seeking to reconquer the Floridas from the British Empire for its own empire, through the French-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez,

This again, is NOT SPAIN in the ARW, either for or against US independence and sovereignty. "In the ARW" is found at the FRENCH-US Treaty of Alliance where France guaranteed both US independence and its sovereignty in North America - - - the purpose of the Thirteen Colony insurrection as of July 1776. That French conflict "in the ARW" for US independence and sovereignty, was separate and apart from the French treaty obligation to Spain to transfer colonial possession of the Floridas, Gibraltar, and Minorca away from Britain and to Spain at the Treaty of Aranjuez. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

To XavierGreen: Re: wp:good faith MISSTATEMENT over chronology and causation: Spanish Governor Gálvez’ "Gulf Coast Campaign" were battles in the ARW. No, those battles occurred during in the prosecution of the “Bourbon War” of France and Spain against Britain, 1778-1783. That time period overlapped the ARW 1775-1783. But Spain was under treaty obligation with France in the 1789 Treaty of Aranjuez NOT to make war on US claimed territory.

- (a) The earlier French US Treaty of Alliance (1778) guaranteed US sovereignty, and Congress had declared its peace negotiation demands in August 1779 for (1) independence, (2) BRITISH territory to the Mississippi River, (3) free navigation of the Mississippi, and (4) fishing rights off Newfoundland. Spain’s official war against Britain during the “Bourbon War” was over territory that France agreed to transfer to Spain in any future peace settlement ending the Anglo-French War (1778). Spain gained the Floridas in the GB-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783), BUT Spain did not recognize US independence, and the US was not signatory. While the ARW and Bourbon War chronologies overlap, the causes do not.

Re: wp:good faith MISSTATEMENT over chronology and causation: "Siege of Gibraltar" and "Battle of Cape St. Vincent" were battles of the American Revolutionary War.

- (b) At the French-Spanish 1789 Treaty of Aranjuez, France explicitly agreed to Spanish demands in that treaty that there would be no peace signed with Britain until Spain acquired Gibraltar, Minorca, and the Floridas. The Spanish-French assault on Gibraltar was a provision of the Spanish-French treaty to do so; there was no Spanish-US treaty to assault Gibraltar.

- (c) Immediately on signing the Treaty of Aranjuez, the French and Spanish made plans for a combined armada fleet to invade the British Isles. The Battle of Cape St. Vincent was an engagement by the British to forestall any such event. While the ARW and Bourbon War chronologies overlap, the causes do not, the results do not. So, they are NOT the same war.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Challenge @ SPAIN: Gov. Galvez versus King Charles

To Canute: I AGREE to include Leader, Luisiana Governor Gálvez at the "Commanders & leaders" Spanish flag. Without adding a line in the “Belligerents” list, we can REPLACE “Charles III with “BERNARDO DE GáLVEZ”. Although Spain was not directly involved in the ARW (see items related to chronology and causation below), Galvez WAS subsequently made an honorary US citizen in 2014 for his ARW contributions, so I think it appropriate and defensible.

- Re: wp:good faith MISSTATEMENT over chronology and causation: ""Spain became directly involved."

- (a) Britain began the Anglo-French War (1778) because France traded with US.

- (b) Spain joined the French in a joint “Bourbon War” against the British Empire in at the 1779 Treaty of Aranjuez to explicitly regain Gibraltar, Minorca, and the Floridas by treaty provision: three possessions Spain had lost at the close of the War of Spanish Succession 1715 Peace of Utrecht and its coastal Eastern Florida and Western Florida to the British at the end of the Seven Years’ War, Treaty of Paris (1763) (in compensation, the French granted Spain Western Louisiana & New Orleans at the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762)).

- (c.1) Spain defended itself from GB aggression at the Battle of Saint Louis in Spanish Luisiana Territory; likewise at Fort St. Joseph, the incursion was justified to Spanish Governor Galvez as a punitive expedition against British allies as a matter of “Indian affairs”. While the ARW and Bourbon War chronologies overlap, the causes do not.

- (c.2) The US Congress had previously resolved that US sovereignty should extend west to the Mississippi River in August 1779, and NOT across to St. Louis. At the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), Spain agreed with France NOT to attack British within the US territorial claim. The “Bourbon War” for the Spanish was NOT to “guarantee” US independence and sovereignty as the French had done in the French-US defensive Treaty of Alliance (1778). While the ARW and Bourbon War chronologies overlap, the causes do not.

- (c.4.1) There is only a tenuous connection to be made for any Spanish Empire ARW “belligerent” status. Spanish raids in the Caribbean against British interests did take away from British blockade in the US, somewhat. (c.4.2) But by your reasoning, the US would be listed as a BRITISH ALLY CO-BELLIGERENT in the ARW Infobox.. The US made an early and permanent cease-fire with Britain in December 1781, a first, early “peace settlement” among the four belligerents arrayed against Britain. It was sufficient WITHOUT France, for Parliament to recommend American peace and independence to King George III in March, 1782. In that way, by April 1782 the US had INDIRECTLY contributed to British victory, freeing warships, patrol and convoy to be MASSED for the Battle of the Saintes, resulting in a decisive victory for Britain. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

At two existing belligerents, ADD flags

PROPOSE at Infobox, “Belligerents”: better image balance with addition of TWO flags.

(1) ADD . for “thirteen states”, represented by the US flag. Although individual legislatures will not adopt state flags until the mid-19th and early-20th centuries, the Articles are ratified by twelve of thirteen (92%) for the last 50% of the war; 100% ratify for the last 31%. ON BALANCE, it is fair to represent the thirteen states with the US flag at the header for the collapsed list of thirteen.

- (a) At ratification of the proposed Articles of Confederation from Congress November 15, 1777, TWELVE of the States of the US (92%) surrendered their sovereignty to the United States Congress in “perpetual union” over the course of the first fourteen months from December 16, 1777 to February 1779. After settling big-state western territorial claims by ceding them to Congress (later for the Northwest Territory) the Maryland legislature finally ratified on March 1, 1781.

- (b) The American Revolutionary War formally continues in formal documents from 1775 George III declaring colonists rebels outside his protection, until the US-GB Treaty of Paris (1783) signed there in September 1783. Therefore, of eight years in the ARW, the US flag represents twelve (92%) of the states for (50%) of the war, and it represents each and every state in the US (100%) for the last two-and-a-half years (31%) of the war.

(2) ADD . for “German auxiliaries”, represented by the Hesse-Kassel crest.

- Hesse-Kassel sent 57% (16,992) of the total 29,867 Germans sent to America for George III by Treaties of Subsidy to compensate their princes. The next largest contingent (19%) came from Brunswick. None of the other four sent more than 8% (2,422). ON BALANCE it is fair to represent German auxiliaries with Hesse-Kassel at the header for the collapsed list of six.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox style

Infobox citations

We have a surprising number of citations in the Infobox. I'm not saying it has to change, but it should give us pause. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#References_in_infoboxes I would recommend that as we continue to put so much effort into the infobox, we should also work on paring down the information presented so that it doesn't become it's own parallel article. Canute (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Each Infobox RS citation is in response to an unsourced challenge. The latest this week is by Roastedturkey at [9]. -

There, newbie Roastedturkey without an Editor or Talk page to reply directly, supposes without RS citation that colonial commons legislatures each in solitary made themselves independent of ALL British authority at once and PRIOR to the Declaration of Independence. - - - This trope is familiar to all US historians as the Jefferson Davis post-Civil War Lost Cause, a history conceived as propaganda for US pro-slavery secessionists of 1860-61. (Their numbers were about one-fourth of 1860 enfranchised US population, and LESS than half of the total 1860 voters in states later represented in the Confederate States Congress).

There are RS to be found that echo that partisanship, using their interpretations for a post-CW "reconciliation historiography", meant to give "moral equivalence" to the two sides, (a) the US "democratic republic" with emancipation for slaves; EQUAL morally, ethically, and legally to (b) the CS "slave-based republic of states", meant to expand slavery into Latin America where it had been abolished. But there is at least one counter-balance for each such. And regardless of an academic cottage industry for books about "IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE WAR", it is settled US Constitutional law, that there is NO LAWFUL secession in the US without Constitutional Amendment; and CHRONOLOGY: there are no "sovereign" states AFTER (a) ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 where each and all ceded state sovereignty to the federal republic of the United States in "perpetual Union", AND then again (b) in "a more perfect Union" at the 1789 Constitution.

(1) The Infobox note in this case, ‘’observing in an abbreviated fashion’’, that the US Congress (the legislature of commons-only colonial legislatures), offered an “Olive Branch Petition” to the CROWN, and at the same time made a resolution to the Thirteen Colonies to prepare state constitutions for local government independent of Parliament.

Benjamin Franklin had previously lobbied in coffee houses among Whig MPs for one MP for all of North America, the Thirteen Colonies, Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Jamaica, etc., but he was personally humiliated in London, and so left for home and became a Patriot. By 1775, delegates in Congress hoped for the Crown to award the Thirteen Colonies a 13-joint/united self-governance under a charter comparable to the British EAST India Company . . . hence the use of that Company’s flag design with thirteen stripes for the Congressional Grand Union Flag , only altering it by turning the Kingdom’s flag-as-canton 90-degees for a difference.

(2) Virginia - - - as cited in the Infobox - - - and all others followed the remonstrance by Congress. They did each resolve in their respective colonial “conventions” and “congresses” a local governance by STATE CONSTITUTIONS to abolish existing “King-in-Parliament” British Imperial rule - - - rendered "British Parliament" in the Infobox edit.

Each of the thirteen "commons/rump" colonial legislatures made their new constitutions based on the request of the “general congress”, and on the authority of the direct suffrages of the “good people” voting in accordance with their colonial laws of franchise. In Virginia, the "Convention" was "refreshed by the suffrages of the people" in the winter IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the 1776 Virginia Convention writing the first state constitution and passing resolutions to Congress for independence from the CROWN and people of Britain.

(3) The United States Declaration of Independence in Congress, by the “authority of the good people” in each of the thirteen colonies - - together as “one people” - -dissolved (a) their “political bands with another”, the British people, AND (b) the tyrant British Crown who had forfeited his right to rule “a free people” in North America. AND (c) With each state having previously resolved independence from its governance by Parliament in accordance with direction from the “general congress”, the British Empire in North America was more than halved by law.

DE FACTO total US independence was established by King George III, declaring for US independence from the British throne in December 1782. The international diplomatic history that follows is anti-climatic "Who-Shot-John". NEVERTHELESS, I remain, with all due respect for tenured Oxford dons and others who make their living in the field, Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Causation and chronology

But once Spain agreed to aid France, they immediately (by 18th century standards) attacked Pensacola before the defenders even knew Spain was an enemy (akin to how Great Britain gained Detroit in 1812). We agree that Spain wasn't really fighting for US independence, but they became "directly" involved in the war in as much as they fought Great Britain and German auxiliaries on land in North America, and against the British Navy at sea. It wasn't a misstatement, it's just an acknowledgement that they fought battles within the geographic scope of this article (even if on the periphery). That's all I meant by that.Canute (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah! the problem of “causation and chronology”. @Canute: Thank you for the courtesy of a reply with a civil tone. Let me try to find common ground using RS footnotes below.

(1) The Britannica says at “American Revolutionary War", that it was fought 1775-1783 between GB and US [and respective German & French treaty allies], over the 'imperial insurrection' / 'constitutional revolution', and its explicitly stated purpose: (a) US independence from Britain, and (b) US territorial sovereignty ceded from GB territory to the Mississippi River.

Peace CHRONOLOGY ending the ARW:

1. March 1782 Parliament recommends George III make US peace;

2. December 1782 George III calls for American independence from the throne of Great Britain;

3. April 1783 US Congress accepts British proposals that meet its formal resolution's four requirements;

4. September 1783 final "conclusive" peace signed ONLY by GB & US at Treaty of Paris (1783);

5. June 1784 re-ratification exchanged, the "conclusive peace" by GB & US, reiterating the four US demands.

Britannica reports that the AWR ended in an exclusively GB-US peace, the Treaty of Paris (1783), with no other signatories, (a) not German auxiliary, (b) not French, (c) nor North American Native-Indian – NOR contemporaneous treaty negotiators in Paris 1782-83 among those seen as “directly involved” by RS diplomatic historians of GB (d) Spanish, (e) Dutch, (f) Russian, (g) Prussians nor (h) Austrians. See Andrew P. Stockley of New Zealand, whose published Cambridge doctoral thesis is one of our common RS.

Jimbo would have Wikipedia a mainstream encyclopedia. We learn from E.H. Carr (What is History?, 1961), historians can be guilty of arbitrarily determining “historical facts” derived from “facts of the past” to explicate political agendas. Editors here should not overthrow the premier English-language scholarly reference Britannica without some hesitation; otherwise, we are presuming to strike off on a wp:fringe historiography all on our own. In the English language worldwide, the mainstream scholarly view finds the scope of the American Revolutionary War to be a 1775-1783 conflict between GB and US over US independence and its sovereignty.

(2) We have Geoffrey Elton the British political and constitutional historian quoted in Historian’s Fallacies, “A cause is something real: people do things in order to get results.”, and at The Idea of History, "History is interested in the thoughts and motivations of the actors in history." -- >> Thus we MUST take into account that during Britain’s “Bourbon War” 1778-1783, that the SPANISH “thought and motivations” led them to make the Treaty of Aranjuez with France to join in France’s war with Britain begun the year before FOR THE SPANISH PURPOSE to acquire Gibraltar, Minorca, and the Floridas.

- “People do things in order to get results”: in this case Spain makes war on Britain to reclaim imperial territory, unrelated to the ARW for or against GB or US independence or sovereignty. (a) Not only has Spain no treaty with the US to “guarantee” its independence and sovereignty as does France, (b) Spain explicitly commits to France to make NO WAR on GB North American territory contested by the US. So, WE CAN NOT SAY the Siege of Pensacola is for American independence or sovereignty. INSTEAD, France by treaty agrees to war with Britain until Spain controls Gibraltar, Minorca and the Floridas, regardless of any US independence or sovereignty obtained by the US.

Therefore, as SPAIN’s “thought and motivation” was (a) its imperial gain in the Floridas, etc., and (b) - NOT - US independence as a republic, ... and ... as SPAIN joined in the French war against GB to “gain the result” of (a) its possessing the Floridas, etc., and (b) - NOT - US sovereignty, … the Spanish attacks on Baton Rouge & Natchez (Spanish territory), Mobile & Pensacola (its earlier imperial provinces), they are NOT in the ARW: They are only coincident to it and adjacent. They are not to be ignored, but they are not central to the topic itself. "Spain" should not be included in the ARW Infobox as a belligerent.

(Although the Spanish Governor Bernardo de Gálvez should be listed as a "Commander and leader" on the US side. Even though he was not formally under an assigned US Continental Army command, he materially assisted Virginia militia Major Clark in securing the US "Northwest Territory" cession, (British Quebec "Illinois Country"), from Britain to the US at the conclusive peace treaty.) - Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

After-action tiff among Clinton-Germain-Cornwallis

At the “British defeat in America (1781)” section, I removed the last paragraph as tangential-to-irrelevant to our “war narrative” here.

It was a “blame game” narrative for home consumption only, precipitated over the British defeat at the Siege of Yorktown, an after-action literary war of letters, memoirs and speeches among Clinton, Germain, and Cornwallis. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Add to "North ministry collapses" section

At section, "North ministry collapses", I’ve added a narrative of the military situation bearing on Lord North & his resignation here. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RS annotated review: "ARW 1775-1783" vs. worldwide “imperial American Revolution”

INSERT: This outline of shared resources could be useful for any subsequent administrator review. Perhaps most striking is for our "imperial American Revolution" (M. Lockwood) editors putting forward Piers Mackesy (1992), who is supposed to be their RS to say the American Revolutionary War (War for American Independence) was a war among five principles, including the US, regardless of whether the Americans, whose republic for individual liberty, participated, either at arms or on paper, with the Empires of GB, France or Spain in warring among themselves for their own imperial objectives.

point-by-point discussion :The charge before their court of world opinion is that the Americans, by securing their own independence from Britain in the late 18th century, unleashed devastating European colonial empires worldwide throughout the 19th century, and thus the Americans "led to the destruction of indigenous civilizations" around the world from the Andes Mountains ... to Australia. The thing "ARW" is said by them, not to be over until the last engaged colonial participant ceased fire following the "conclusive" treaty between GB and Netherlands.

However, to the contrary, Mackesy at his Preface: "This, then, is not a history of the War of Independence, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war [or, rather, a half of the European Great Powers' world at war], the last in which the [British] enemy were the Bourbons [the kings of France and Spain].” Mackesy’s focus is GB and GB’s wars; the Anglo-American, Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch wars, which are formally contemporaneous only from 1780-1783. The British and Americans have an unbroken North American continental cease-fire from December 1781. Counting de facto armed conflict in the Thirteen Colonies made independent by events derivative from George III's announcement for US independence from the throne in December 1782, the four wars are ongoing at the same time only 1780-1781.

So, as matter of global diplomatic history, the European strategies in their "War for America" in various guises is not the "American Revolutionary War" for US independence and sovereignty to the Mississippi River from GB-ceded territory. A war formally ended in April 1783 at Congressional acceptance of British terms inclusive of US demands, or in September 1783 at the formal signing by authorized ministers of GB and US at the Treaty of Paris (1783) between them alone. In any case, relative Mackesy's book and its intended purpose, see direct quotes from the Introduction to The War for America: 1775-1783 below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RS for American Revolutionary War, 1775-1783

Here RS describe an American War for Independence in North America carried out in North America and the Caribbean Sea, including their maritime trade routes to Europe. The American [constitutional] Revolution takes place between the UK empire and the US Congress, beginning formally with the August 1775 George III proclamation of "rebels" in North America, and ending with the January 1783 UK-US armistice honored by UK, US, and their respective European allies. UK-US peace and US independence is formally established with the September 1783 Peace of Paris (1783) without any signatories among other warring European Powers, nor any reference to their territories worldwide that suffered continuing conflict into the future.

point-by-point discussion These first RS have been described by our ‘Lord Cornwallis’ and XavierGreen RS as missing the “larger picture”. [Bracketed] cites also coincide with standard British academic references on the American Revolutionary War published by the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Routledge Publishers.

While “highlighting forgotten stories of women, Native Americans, and African Americans”, that “fail to upend” the ARW legacy. They still interpret ARW goals and ideals of revolution as “an example of America at its best, as it sought to be”, rather than led by “flawed and imperfect founders” who failed to "share its benefits equally" among all inhabitants of North America by 1783. - M. Lockwood.

1. Berkin, Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence. Snippet viewed 11 May 2020. “It was a long war, an eight-year war, begun even before the declaration of independence was signed and continuing, sporadically after peace was declared … not addressed until the constitutional convention of 1787 [in North America].
2. [Black, Jeremy. George III: America’s Last King (2008) p. 231-38. "The war broadened out when first France (1778) and then Spain (1779) joined in against Britain... Sympathy for the Americans declined, in part because of their alliance with France... In 1779, Britain was threatened by Franco-Spanish co-operation after Spain join in the war [against Britain, apart from the North American rebellion there]... The failure of the Bourbon invasion plan offered encouragement … George was optimistic … believing that Bourbon entry into the war [against Britain] did not block prospects for an acceptable end to the [North American] rebellion." [i.e. British war with France and Spain was separate and apart from the American War for Independence.] ]
3. Conway, Stephen. The War of American Independence, 1775-1783 (1995)
4. Hook, Holger. Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth (2017) Snippet viewed 11 May 2020. “To understand the [constitutional] Revolution and the war … we must write the [“American-on-American”] violence, in all its forms, back into the story. That is my aim in this book.” “It was through the longest war on American soil that the Patriots defended their new nation’s independence from the British Empire”.
5. Ferling, John. Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War that Won It (2015) “Chapter 6. “Blows Must Decide Whether They Are to Be Subject to This Country”: The War Begins [1775], Chapter 16. ‘Oh God, It Is All Over.”: Peace, Conspiracy, Demobilization, Change, 1781-1783.
6. Nash, Gary. The Unknown American Revolution: the unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. (2006) “The aim of this book is to capture the revolutionary involvement of all the component parts of some three million wildly diverse people living east of the Mississippi River.”
7. Stanton, Lucia C. Free Some Day: The African American Families of Monticello.
8. Taylor, Alan. American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 (2016). Between 1689 and 1763, the British and French waged four massive wars throughout the world’s oceans and in far-flung colonies as well as in Europe… 1689-1697, 1702-1713, 1743-1748, 1754-1763. “By emphasizing the broader North America, including the West, this book breaks with an older view of colonial America as limited to the Atlantic coast and almost entirely British in culture … broadening the geographic stage and diversified the human cast of colonial America."
9. Waldstreicher, David. Runaway America: Benjamin Franklin, Slavery and the American Revolution.
10. Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America.

The next four RS authors show that establishing a geographically large democratic republic for the first time in world history was relevant to “the first swelling of a global democratic wave”. They are characterized by our ‘Lord Cornwallis’ and XavierGreen RS as focusing exclusively on the ideological facets of the American [Revolution] to “situate the American Revolution within a shared Atlantic context and its shaping similar revolutions in France, Poland, Haiti and South America”.

They come up short for not describing the ‘world war’ complexity of the “imperial American Revolution” required to overcome the pernicious effects of today’s American “jingoistic worldview”. Therefore, they are complicit in dangerously perpetuating today’s “selfish pursuit of American interests above all else.” - M. Lockwood.

1. Israel, Jonathan. The Expanding Blaze: How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775-1848 (2017). “The American Revolution (1774-83) ranks among the most written about episodes in history. It achieved independence and forged a great nation … [it] was the first and one of the most momentous upheavals of a whole series of revolutionary events gripping the Atlantic world during the three-quarters of a century from 1775 to 1848-9 … With the conclusion of the American War of Independence in 1783 … in 1784, a year after the Peace of Versailles that set the seal on independence …”
2. Langley, Lester. The Long American Revolution and Its Legacy (2019). The Seven Years’ War was a continuation of the Second Hundred Years’ War (1689-1815). …Of the four major revolutions in the Atlantic world in the half-century after 1775 – the American, the French, the Haitian, and the Latin” [Spanish] American – the most complicated was the American. Chronology and geography are broad, “from the local and national to the Atlantic world …” Part 1, “The New World’s First Republic”.
3. Palmer, Robert Roswell. The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800 (2014 updated). David Armitage Intro. At volume I, The Challenge (1959), “The American Revolution was the opening act of this revolutionary age, and the United States was the one successful beacon of “democracy” thereafter.”
4. Polasky, Janet. Revolutions without Borders: The Call to Liberty in the Atlantic World (2016) “The first chapter begins with the American Revolution in 1776”. Future revolutionary Jean-Baptiste Mailhe published his pamphlet on the importance of the American Revolution in Toulouse in 1784, celebrating that its “philosophy … cannot be stopped in its progress.”

Interpretations of RS challenged: initially posted to support a long "imperial American Revolution"

These fourteen RS are challenged by pro "ARW-1775-83" editors NOT as RS, but as to pro "imperial American Revolution" WP editors' mis-interpretations of them applying a conflict over Thirteen Colony independence in North America to imperial conflict among Euro Great Powers worldwide - - after UK-US armistice & peace, US disbanded armies & US decommissioned navy.

They were first posted as though they supported the view that the "American Revolution" was a conflict of European Great powers waged worldwide, outside of North America, and beyond the January 1783 UK-US armistice that ended hostilities among themselves and their allies in North America, which then formally made UK-US peace with US independence at the Peace of Paris (1783).

point-by-point discussion The American Revolution: A World War]. 2018, which summarises a lot of the scholarship about this: @ Allison (2018) in the Forward, Smithsonian scholar John L. Gray, notes “The period between 1689 and 1815 was dubbed the Second Hundred Years' War by the British historian John Robert Seeley, and the name has stuck." [It] was fought primarily between the two great European powers of the day, France and England [Britain post-1707], but it also pulled in allies on both sides from across Europe and even from Asia. The colonials of the American Revolutionary War “fully understood America’s role in wider wars around the world [and] … recognized that their own fight for independence against Britain would necessarily involve European powers, most notably France and Spain."

1. Adkins, Leslie and Roy Adkins. Gibraltar: The Greatest Siege in British History. Hachette UK, 2017. During the Seven Years’ War, at the British surrender of Fort Mahon in Gibraltar in 1756, Vice-Admiral John Byng was shot by firing squad as guilty of failing to do his utmost to take or destroy the French ships there. French celebration of the victory included creation of Mahonaise sauce after Port Mahon, now mayonnaise. [In ten years], America became the focus of attention when the struggle for freedom from Britain broke out at Lexington in 1775. In an attempt to gain revenge for their losses in the Seven Years’ War, Louis XVI’s France soon sided with the American colonies and agreed to supply ships, money and men, but once the French intervened a new wave of patriotism spread through Britain. Many militia regiments were formed as a home guard, since there was a genuine fear of Britain being invaded, while new regiments were enthusiastically recruited by private subscription… the 72nd Regiment of Foot … was originally intended for America, but was actually diverted to Gibraltar …France officially declared war on Britain in July 1778, [following the French-US Treaty of Alliance (1778) to maintain US independence defensively in North America] but they needed Spanish naval ships to achieve overwhelming superiority [in European waters, about Gibraltar, and worldwide].
2. Dull, Jonathan R. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution. Yale University Press, 1987. “The final treaty was signed at Paris on September 3, 1783, and in substance merely restated the terms agreed upon the previous November [1782]. On the same day the French and Spanish treaties were signed in Versailles …”.160. The consensus in Congress throughout its negotiations with European powers was that “in order to maintain her independence the United States would need foreign military supply (and possibly naval escort), but that to obtain such help America need not and should not offer more than her trade. This reluctance to offer a military alliance in exchange for foreign assistance was based on both the fear of such alliances and the belief that they would be unnecessary. …in case of an [Anglo-French War]. “Congress was prepared to offer little more than American neutrality. 53.
3. Dull, Jonathan R. The French Navy and American Independence: A Study of Arms and Diplomacy, 1774-1787 (2015) Louis accepted the Treaty of Paris 1763 as the basis for negotiations with Britain to end the Anglo-French war with exceptions apart from the American War for Independence: “1. …concerning the East Indies, 2. …relative to Africa, 3. …Newfoundland fishery, 4. …commerce for the convenience of the two nations in Europe.”289. … On [30 November 1782], the Americans signed their agreement, which was conditional upon terms of peace being reached by Britain and France. The terms were extraordinary …territorial limits, …American fishing rights [Newfoundland], …property seized [from Loyalists]. On all three issues the British made concessions which exceeded all Vergennes had believed possible… [the French acceded because of] the unwillingness of the Americans to continue the war for the sake of Spain [and their treaty with France to war with Britain until acquiring Gibraltar to their empire - - a consideration kept secret from the Americans]. 325-6.”
4. Ferling, John E. Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence p.xii "and indeed the War of Independence grew to be a world war" @ Ferling's Almost A Miracle (2007): "Part I. Going to War, 1775-1776, Part IV. American Victory, 1781-1783": Am. Revolution 'helped' fuel conflicts for the British elsewhere about the globe, having little to no impact on the war and its aftermath in America. India is not mentioned at all: @ Ferling (2009, xii). "John Adams remarked that the American Revolution had set the world ablaze, and indeed the War of Independence grew to be a world war" - - that means when British colonials stood up against UK empire, others seeking their own interests did likewise around the world - - - apart from equal rights of man and government by consent of the governed.
5. Fleming, Thomas. The Perils of Peace: America's Struggle for Survival After Yorktown (2008) Fleming makes reference to “a planned second division of [Rochambeau’] expeditionary force” while he garrisoned a year at Newport RI without action. But “[the second division of] troops had been diverted to other theaters of the [French] worldwide war with Britain”: @ Fleming (2008), that does not make the American Revolution, a colonial insurrection for their independence from Britain, a “worldwide war with Britain” among Britain and France, Spain, the Netherlands, along with their sundry far-flung allies in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia fighting imperial wars - - begun and concluded without regard or reference to US independence in North America.
6. Glickstein, Don. After Yorktown: The Final Struggle for American Independence (2015) “France, Spain, and Britain signed their preliminary peach treaty on January 20, 1783, when they also agreed to an armistice.” Dutch continued for another seven months. “Parliament approved the treaty… The final approved treaties were signed in September 1783 by the Americans … in Paris, and by the French and Spanish at the Versailles palace.” Congress ratified in mid-January 1784, George III signed in late March, “the fighting continued for months after Yorktown.” “Ten years later, O’Hara was Gibraltar’s lieutenant governor and an experienced general” faced off against Captain Napoleon’s artillery on November 28, [1793].” @ Glickstein (2015) The fighting between O’Hara, second in command of the British at Yorktown, “fighting the war” since 1777, and the artillery barrage by the French Captain Napoleon at Gibraltar commanded by Governor O’Hara, is not usually encompassed in RS on the “American Revolutionary War”. The title of this book is “After Yorktown” addressing fighting around the world after US-honored armistice, formal peace, disbanded armies and decommissioned navy.
7. Mackesy, Piers. The War for America: 1775-1783. University of Nebraska Press, 1992. Mackesy at the Preface: “This, then, is not a history of the War of Independence, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war, the last in which the enemy were the Bourbons [the kings of France and Spain].” From the Intro by John W. Shy: “With French entry, the war [for Britain] changed its character. Subduing the colonies became for Britain secondary to the more accustomed task of fighting France. Again [as before in the Seven Year’s War], the strategic center [in the worldwide war with France] shifted southward, to the rich sugar islands of the West Indies … The surrender of a small army at Yorktown, Virginia, [bringing a North American armistice and preliminary peace with US independence] did not end the war, [the Anglo-French War with France worldwide] … elements of [Parliament’s] political opposition during the next two years continued the war effectively against France [worldwide until 1784] but negotiated a peace with the Americans [for its independence in late 1782].”
8. Middleton, Richard. The War of American Independence: 1775-1783. Routledge, 2014: @ Middleton. p.110 refers to a note from Amherst to Sandwich "the contest in America being a secondary consideration, our principal object must be distressing France and defending and securing our own possessions against their hostiles attempts" leading to the decision to order Clinton to abandon Philadelphia and New York if need be.
9. Murphy, Orville T. Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes: French Diplomacy in the Age of Revolution, 1719-1787 (1993). Rayneval concluded that for the French, the British settlement with the Americans [independently between UK-US granting independence at the Treaty of Paris 1783, before peace with France] was ‘a dream, and the English ministers in according it [must have] had in view ultimately the defection of the Americans.’ “But, in fact, a defection never occurred, the war not prolonged … [though without full consultation with Vergennes], “the American commissioners … did not violate any principle of the Treaty of 1778.”393. “When the peace treaties were finally signed in 1783, and the war finally ended.” Vergennes summarized “that the primary aim of the war—American independence— had been, in fact, achieved.”398. This does not support the POV that the “imperial American Revolution” was meant to expand European Great Power colonial power, rather that Great Powers saw a way to weaken Britain by advancing the progress of the Thirteen Colonies independence.
10. O'Shaughnessy, Andrew. The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of the Empire. 2013. refers that from 1779 Clinton "Had to contend with the additional complication of a world war against France and Spain": @ O'Shaughnessy (2013, 229). General Clinton "had to contend with the additional complication of a world war against France and Spain" - - in addition to and apart from quelling an insurrection among British subjects on the eastern seaboard of North America, an attempt ended following 1781 Yorktown with the 1782 armistice honored by all parties in North America.
11. Stockley, Andrew. Britain and France at the Birth of America: The European Powers and the Peace Negotiations of 1782-1783. Stockley uses personification in the passive voice to associate US Congress with Euro Great Powers by juxtaposition: “The War of American Independence involved armed conflict in the Channel, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, in Africa, India, America and the Caribbean. The peace of 1783 [not the Treaty of Paris with US but the Treaties of Versailles with France and Spain] had to deal with lands and territory in all four quarters of the world.”: @ Stockley (2001) As a scholar, Stockley notes, that both Fox and Shelburne agreed, “the first and primary goal of [peace] negotiations was to separate America from France”. - - - And UK succeeded in that US warring against UK did NOT spread, it ended at the Treaty of Paris (1783). Instead of interjecting itself into Great Power affairs, the US disbanded its army and navy, then fell into neutrality for the next twenty-five years until its 1798 Quasi-War ... with France.
12. Stoker, Donald, Kenneth J. Hagan & Michael T. McMaster, eds. Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach. p.86 "Now North America was merely part of a global war of the great powers" @ Stoker et al (2009, 86). "Now North America was merely part of a global war of the great powers" - - among the great powers apart from the ARW elsewhere around the globe.
13. Syrett, David. The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War. Univ of South Carolina Press, 1998. “This book is an operational history. As such, it deals with events that affected the operations of the British navy during the years 1775-82, and its narrative thrust follows the sound of the guns.” “… This war … spread outward from Massachusetts to Involve not only America and Britain, but also France, Spain, and the Netherlands … [it] led to one of the great naval wars of the eighteenth century … eventually involving … the insurgent republic’s allies. The Definitive Treaties of Peace were signed on 3 September 1783 at Versailles by Britain and the Bourbon powers: @ Syrett (1998) the book relates to the period 1775-82, confined to the navies of Britain and those of US allies, noting that peace apart from American independence [UK-US Treaty of Paris (1783)] is achieved among European belligerents among themselves at "Definitive Treaties of Peace" signed by Britain, Bourbon France, and Bourbon Spain, without the de facto neutrality of the US brought about by their dissolving US field armies and decommissioning the US Navy.

RS for the worldwide “imperial American Revolution” by the European Powers

"The initial British colonial insurrection in 13 colonies spreading worldwide, … [left] in its wake an altered balance of power … [collapsing] millennia-old civilizations in India, Australia, Africa, China, and the Middle East … the American Revolution “brought the authoritarian counter-revolution” and the rise of the great colonial power[s] … Britain, Spain, France, … Russia …"

“The imperial American Revolution altered forever the lives of everyday people, ravaging communities and sending thousands of individuals to new homes in distant lands, to opportunity, to ruin, to prison, and to the gallows … bound, incarcerated, and exiled, struggling to survive in the world the revolution created. These are their stories.” - M. Lockwood.

1. ALONE: Lockwood, Matthew. To Begin the War Over Again: How the American Revolution Devastated the Globe

More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments and Discussion

Do you think you could condense exactly what you feel these RS say in terms of discussion of the ongoing scope of this article, I've read through three times but I still wasn't entirely sure of the thrust. Thanks, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Lord Cornwallis, we appreciate your words of consideration. As we've said, there are no issues regarding Britain's other global involvements covered in summary in the International War breaks out section. In terms of getting through the controversy here, it would help matters greatly if you simply stated what you feel the section needs. Certainly Gibraltar was a factor in the negotiations at Paris, esp with Spain. Our only contention is that Gibraltar did not impact the outcome of the war for independence as much as Saratoga, Yorktown, et al, did. Clearly Britain, with strained resources and heavy losses at Yorktown, and elsewhere, and in the face of the navies of France and Spain, was not in a position to resume the war in America. Given the hundreds of sources, new and old, it seems we'll be here forever. As said, we can cover negotiations regarding Gibraltar and the other many issues. For purposes of this article, what summary would you propose for the section specifically? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you place a decisive event like the Battle of the Chesapeake, and the naval campaign that led to it, among what did impact the outcome of the war for independence as much as Saratoga, Yorktown, et al, did, or as part of Britain's other global involvements? I clearly have no time to devolve to reading the probably wonderful back-and-fro arguments exchanged on this page, but it seems to me that you cannot really carve out one from the other, or call them separate wars. There were theaters in the War of Austrian Succession that did not involve Austria, there were theaters in the French Revolutionary wars that did not involve France, and there were many theaters in WWII which did not involve the occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany, the original casus belli of the War. I am not sure that I fully understand the debate at hand, but it would seem hard to consider how secondary theaters of this war are not part of the war. Place Clichy (talk)

Battle of the Chesapeake was a French defensive action to maintain US independence in North America as agreed at their Treaty of Alliance 1778 - - - so, RS place it within the ARW. The US and its European allies honored their December 1782 armistice with Britain in North America, US gained independence from Britain at the UK-US Treaty of Paris 1783, accepted final peace terms early 1784 by Act of Congress, then disbanded its armies and decommissioned its navy.

European Power's imperial struggle on the Continent at Gibraltar continued a year AFTER the 1782 armistice for North America. - - That conflict was only amongst themselves, mutually dishonoring the armistice separate from the ARW. The Great Siege was REMOVED from the ARW in North America, and without any US participation that would violate its sacred bond among equal and separated nations publicly entered into November 1782..

point-by-point discussion :::::FYI, at Chamberlain's "peace for our time", Germany agreed to seek no more territory in Europe, such as Poland. In the European manner, it broke the armistice, by the 1939 German incursion into Poland. - - UNLIKE the US at the American Revolutionary War, Germany did not honor any armistice, nor formally agree to peace, nor disband its armies, nor decommission its navy. - - - WWII spread AFTER Germany did NOT follow the US 1782-4 example ending the ARW in North America with US independence, where the US had neither added to nor subtracted from any European Power territory held, conquered or claimed anywhere in the world 1775-1782 at the armistice.

Note: The US did NOT have an "imperial American Revolution" AFTER agreeing to armistice and peace with Europeans - - it had no armies, no navy, and no fighting with European colonial allies. Fighting "After Yorktown" in worldwide theaters of war by others for European imperial gains can reasonably be separated from the ARW and a US republic at peace with the European world and its colonies, one that confined its martial affairs within North America to respond to the British-supplied Indian attacks of 1784 that were carried out within its European-ceded territory. @Place Clichy, Lord Cornwallis, and Gwillhickers: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is precisely that you cannot really carve out the Battle of the Chesapeake from the American Revolutionary War (it was arguably one of its most decisive actions), and you cannot carve out either any of the Atlantic naval campaign of which it was a part, e.g. the Battle of Grenada or the Battle of the Saintes. The American Revolutionary War was one of several large conflicts of the 18th century that was complex and fought on several theaters, and the scope of this article should definitely reflect that. The article dedicated to a more specifically American context including nation-building and political context is at American Revolution. I frankly do not understand much about the Chamberlain comparison above, I guess they refer to other edits. I however suggest to compare the scope and name of the conflict with other contemporary wars such as the War of the Austrian Succession and the French Revolutionary Wars among others (think Poland or Spain) which went well beyond the history of the country whose name they bear. I do not wish to involve myself in the lengthy and time-consuming discussions on this page, but please count me among those who consider that the scope of this article should be the main article for the international conflict called the American Revolutionary War (or sometimes the American War for Independence), and not just its American theater. The fact that is has 'American' in the name is no argument for that. Place Clichy (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No one wants to carve out anything that is directly involved in the fighting during the American Rvolution, esp in American waters. The Battle of the Chesapeake clearly deserves coverage in this article. It was fought off the coast of America and both the French and British were fighting for naval superiority involving efforts to supply and help Cornwallis during the Yorktown campaign. This was one of the key battles during that campaign. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: Thank you for the courtesy of a response. I understand I did not persuade you. From elsewhere in the thread, two standard British scholarly references defining "American Revolutionary War" as limited to the UK-US conflict over American Independence: (1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, and (2) Routledge Publishers, Dictionary of War 1999, “American Revolution (1775-83)”.

It is TRUE: The French Revolutionary Wars among others ... went well beyond the history of the country whose name they bear. . . . because they projected military operations outside their national boarders to effect an IMPERIAL policy elsewhere in Europe. But the US (1) had no ground forces outside its territory in Europe, (2) honored the UK-US 1782 armistice worldwide, (3) disbanded US armies, (4) decommissioned US ships, (5) traded with all European belligerents and smuggled with their Caribbean colonies.

- - World history would probably be a lot better off in the long run if every belligerent party signed an armistice with Britain and stuck by it, like, say, Napoleon, or Hitler, or Stalin, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you define a war by the extent that one of its participants wants to give to it? And even then, the colonists indeed projected military operations outside their national boarders, namely in Québec. Diplomatic action to woo France to get involved, by the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane, and privateering far from American ports also tell that the conflict became international even through the colonists' direct action. Place Clichy (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As to Quebec, the ARW base of several British imperial invasions of the US, (1) French colonials supported the Thirteen Colony rebellion. Those in the Mississippi River Valley joined Virginia militia on assurances of free practice of the Roman Catholic faith, and played pivotal roles with then Major George Rogers Clark in conquering Virginia's western Stuart-King charter lands north of the Ohio River (later the Northwest Territory). These then formed Illinois County, Virginia, with its County seat in the French village of Kaskaskia, duly represented in the General Assembly during the ARW, and openly practicing their religion of choice apart from the established Anglican church in British Imperial Canada.

point-by-point discussion :::::::(2) Permanent Canadian-English majorities in Canadian Parliament, have undergone great Francophone turmoil and strife over decades; the ethnic-minority political unrest continues in contemporary movement for Quebecois secession. [For reference see permanent English-majority Parliaments in unitary governance, reference the centuries-long history of minority Scots and Irish maladministration and starvation - - and their national ethnic-minority secession movements to achieve the "direct representation" secured by American colonials in the ARW by states (then direct representation by apportioned population and states at the US Constitution).

(3) Today in the US federal democratic republic, the legal and cultural heritage in Virginia is reflected in the rule of law assumption of English Common Law until subsequent state legislation replaces it; in Louisiana, the French law and culture is reflected by assumption of the Code Napoleon until state legislation, AND the Napoleonic Code is assimilated into national US jurisprudence through the holdings of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sometimes reinforced in the Fifth Federal Appeals District by elements of Spanish Imperial Bourbon Reform Law absorbed via land titles and contracts at the acquisition of Texas. @Gwillhickers, Rjensen, and A D Monroe III:

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: All good points.

(1) We are using the ARW scope here iaw Britannica, the gold standard reference in the English-speaking world; it's British, so our scope is not one of its participants, but the scholarly authority for the mother country of Canada, Thirteen Colonies, and the British Empire then British Commonwealth worldwide.

- a personal aside: the highlight of my high school senior year where I lettered in cross country and track, was visiting a classmate in Jamaica for two weeks to watch the 1966 Commonwealth Games.

point-by-point discussion :(2) France was not interested in the English insurrection until after the British loss at Saratoga, and then ONLY to pre-empt the British because spies alerted France to the Parliamentary maneuver and its commission to offer the Thirteen Colonies self-government without Parliament, the same deal extant with the British East India Company.

Recall: Congressional Olive Branch Petition was addressed to their ruler and sovereign King George III to protect them from the vagarities of a Parliament without direct colonial representation:

the same deal the British Empire had with the British East India Company .

Then note: North American British colonies flew the Colonial Red Ensign:.

The Virginia General Assembly at declaring independence of British Parliament,

adopted the First Congress [Olive Branch Petition] Grand Union Flag: .

The US Congress at declaring independence of Great Britain,

adopted another banner of alternating red and white stripes, the US Flag: .

That flag, flown from a sailing ship's mast top poking over the horizon, appeared through a telescope at the ramparts of any Spanish Caribbean fortress the same as the commercial British East India Company Flag.

- - so, in every case, differentiated from a menacing British man-of-war: .

(3) As Gwillhickers assured you, the maritime trade routes from the Thirteen Colonies to all belligerent Caribbean colonies and to Europe to varying degrees, are important to the war and wartime outcomes of the ARW - - they have been emphasized by our 'Lord Cornwallis' and XavierGreen, and that portion of their contribution is gratefully acknowledged and universally accepted as consensus here.

Note: Trade with commercial factors in Bermuda allowed George Washington to replace his tobacco culture with wheat to free his personal finances from dependency on London merchants. The round trip to Bermuda and back from Virginia was 7-10 days, the exchange was in British pounds. Then the Bermuda market sold the grain at auction throughout the Caribbean and Europe. This replaced the inefficient London mercantile system of a British merchant's ship loading plantation grain, then island hopping over the Caribbean Sea until portions could be sold by lots, exchanged in several currencies, over the course of months.

Captured Bermuda gunpowder quadrupled Washington's supply to force the British evacuation of Boston, and an allotment was sent to Charleston SC to fend off a 5-1 British attack supported by nine warships - then not re-attempted by the British until four years later. See Smithsonian Magazine, "The Raid on Bermuda That Saved the American Revolution".

Lot's more to do here on the maritime aspects of the ARW, to your very good point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Starting points

@Lord Cornwallis: I hope to complete my survey of the good RS you have provided, as well as glean an additional monograph occasionally from those RS introductions and bibliographies ... sort of "standing in their shadow", or "standing on their shoulders" depending on your outlook about Wikipedia editing ... a methodology that I hope will insulate me from any taint of "American-centered" bias in the process of RS review and assessment relative to the ARW/AWI article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Article scope: an initial starting point I want to (1) orient my focus on Wikipedia "general readership" in the English language - and (2) avoid "technical jargon" per WP:NOT 2.8: "Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." Among professional historians, some usages of "American Revolution" may have grown up within competing schools of academia with the advent of the American "New Historians", or more generally American History revisionists at the end of the 20th century.

point-by-point discussion :I am beginning the thought process for assessing RS mentioned here at Talk:American Revolutionary War on the scope of the ARW article with the noted British academic publisher of references in the humanities, Routledge: London & New York. See George Childs Kohn, Dictionary of Wars, (1999) at “American Revolution (1775-83)”. The "war" there is described as a conflict within US claimed territory for US independence. Participants were primarily limited to Britain & Indian allies against US & French allies. After Yorktown, most fighting ceased in winter 1781-82 except the “British-Indian Raids of 1782”, "...not until the Treaty of Paris, by which Britain formally recognized American Independence, was it certain that the revolution was over.”

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let's remember that without events like the surrenders at Saratoga and Yorktown, there never would have been a Treaty of Paris to begin with. It was those events that brought everyone to the negotiating table, and as such, it was those events that were the major factor in ending the war. Gibraltar was of little concern to the Americans. When word of the surrender reached England it created an overall mood of futility, anguish and anger. The idea of Britain continuing the war in America was soon deemed a virtual impossibility, esp with funding near the breaking point. To do so in the face of French sea power likely would have cost Britain many of her other colonies, ports, fisheries, etc.<Ketchum, 2014, Victory at Yorktown, pp. 274-275> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• When word of the surrender reached Germain and Parliament in late November there was mixed reaction. When King George suggested in a save-face speech that the war should continue he was met with overwhelming disapproval from the Commons, while North and Germain remained hopeful. Intense debate continued in the weeks following, and slowly but surely any support for continuing the war in America steadily diminished.<Ferling, 2007, pp. 540-542> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• The successful conclusion of the Treaty of Paris mostly involved what the Americans wanted: American Independence was to be recognized by the European super-powers, the vast territories west of the Appalachain Mountains to the Mississippi River, South Carolina and Georgia were to become states, while the Americans were to be granted the right to navigate on the Mississippi, conduct trade and exploit its fisheries. Britain was to withdraw all its remaining troops from American soil. The Americans had virtually no concern for Gibraltar which played no part in the American agreement to terms of peace, and which only served to placate Spain and Britain.<Ferling, 2007, pp. 550-551> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

point-by-point discussion :Article Scope: a second starting point, from Encyclopaedia Britannica which is the major British competitor in academic publishing to Routledge. In Britannica’s “Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775-83)” >> at the SEARCH BRITANNICA prompt enter "American Revolutionary War" <<. At the article it reads, "[an] insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America. Until early in 1778 the conflict was a civil war within the British Empire, but afterward it became an international war as France (in 1778) and Spain (in 1779) joined the colonies [in North America] against Britain. Meanwhile, the Netherlands, which provided both official recognition of the United States and financial support for it, was engaged in its own war against Britain." "...Preliminary articles of peace were signed on November 30, 1782, and the Peace of Paris (September 3, 1783) ended the U.S. War of Independence.”

At the Encyclopaedia Britannica “Peace of Paris, (1783)”, [it is defined as a] collection of treaties concluding the American Revolution and signed by representatives of Great Britain on one side and the United States, France, and Spain on the other. Preliminary articles (often called the Preliminary Treaty of Paris) were signed at Paris between Britain and the United States on November 30, 1782. On September 3, 1783, three definitive treaties were signed—[first,] between Britain and the United States in Paris (the Treaty of Paris) [acknowledging US independence] and [followed by those,] between Britain and France and Spain, respectively, at Versailles [making worldwide peace among those signatories]. The Netherlands and Britain also signed a preliminary treaty on September 2, 1783, and a final separate peace on May 20, 1784 [between the Netherlands and Britain, alone].

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)