Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

RfC for neutrality proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to remove both mercenaries and auxiliaries when presented as statements of fact.
Closing RfC, per Ending RfCs, #5 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

---

The issue of using the terms mercenaries v auxiliaries in reference to Hessian soldier has once again come to the ARW Talk page. To achieve a lasting neutrality it has been suggested that we remove all usages of both auxiliaries and mercenaries, and just refer to the German soldiers as Hessian soldiers in a strictly neutral fashion. To help clarify matters we would include a footnote after the first usage of Hessian (soldier) (see proposed footnote directly above) which simply points out that historians often use the two terms interchangeably, while others use either term and offer facts and ideas that lend support to both auxiliaries and mercenaries. As this debate has occurred many times over the last several years, with no lasting agreement, it would seem this is the best way to put this issue to rest and come up with an article that doesn't leave half the readership disappointed or wondering about the integrity of WP editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Support or Oppose

. . . removing all occurrences of mercenaries and auxiliaries in reference to Hessian (or German) soldiers. Please keep any comments simple and in the below Comments subsection.

• Support -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- Canute (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per neutral tone. TFD (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems neutral, unless there are finer points of difference bewteen the two words. Senorangel (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, it's simple, NPOV language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Support. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Clear and easy to enact resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - A straightforward solution. (Summoned by bot)Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems the best way out. Carlstak (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Happy to see such an obvious solution win out. One well-worded footnote should handle nomenclature and origins. BusterD (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support – finesses the problem here, which is a good thing. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — (moved comment about extra Hessian links and MOS issues to below Comments section.)
• Support. It would be easy to do and preserves NPOV language. Ltwin (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Removing all occurrences" injects the POV of the WP editor. Simply use term used by the RS. That way we have accuracy and the reader can parse whether the Hessians were "bad" mercenaries or "good" auxiliaries or vice-versa. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See reply below, under Comments.

Comments

• This issue has gone on for years and this is a reasonable way to obtain neutrality without compromising or changing any meaning in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'll generally support the proposal, but I would caution about referring to all German forces as "Hessian" except when they obviously are. That's another never-ending debate, but one easily avoided by simply using generic terms when warranted. Thanks for putting together a proposal, by the way. Whether it's voted up or down, at least you made an effort to bring closure to an old issue. Canute (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Canute, Thanks for the words of encouragement. According to sources most of the German soldiers were from the two Hesse states, Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Hanau, but we can add a footnote of clarity stating they were not all from those places. Another issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read different estimates, from around ½ to ⅔ of the forces came from Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau, excluding the forces from Hanover which were not sent to North America. It just depends on who's estimates you use. Also, the proper Hessian forces are found near Washington's main forces, in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. So they not only have the numbers, but also the narrative. Brunswick forces have one moment to shine in the Saratoga campaign, but then largely disappear from the history books. And few people even take notice of the war in Florida where the Waldeckers fought Gálvez. You can't make everybody happy, because if you call all the German state forces "Hessian," people will point out that they aren't all from Hesse. But if you call them "German," people will point out that "Germany" was not yet a unified state, and that not everyone in the ranks was German speaking (or even European). Again, I'm not going to make an issue of it, I'm just trying to point out some of the landmines we've stepped on in the past. Canute (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Senorangel, thanks for chiming in. The two terms, auxiliaries and mercenaries, of course have their finer points of differences, but the soldiers in question shared qualities of both, which have been the source of debate around here for some time now. This is why, imo, it's best to just use neutral proper terms. i.e.German soldier, Hessian soldier, et al. No matter how we refer to them, the Germans were a significant component of the American Revolutionary War, and their actions, good and bad, speak for themselves. No adjective is going to change that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• It may possibly push off the dispute to Hessian (soldier) (or maybe not), but if it does, that's the right place to resolve it and localizes the dispute to one article, instead of every article which refers to Hessians. Given that the expression being removed offers a very basic description of what "Hessians" are, there is a slight downside to removing it, i.e., plenty of readers may be scratching their head about what it means. Because of this, I would like to make a plea for additional wikilinks to fill the void, by linking the first occurrence in each major (H2) section. There are currently seven major sections, and only the first four of them contain any occurrences of Hessian in them; can we agree to have at least one occurrence of Hessian linked in each of those four sections? This would be contrary to the MOS recommendation of linking only the first occurrence of a term, but imho this is one of those cases where common sense suggests doing it another way for the benefit of the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot — I'm inclined to go along with extra Hessian links, but it seems it will only be a matter of time before other editors will remove the extra links. We'll have a link in the info-box and after the first occurrence of Hessians, both with footnotes, so hopefully this will be adequate for most, if not all, of the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't get too wrapped around the axle about "Hessians" for now. The vote was more specific to the endless debate about 'mercenary' vs 'auxiliary.' You've offered a good solution to that. Whether or not to call them all "Hessians" is a related but distinct debate, and something that's easy to punt to the related articles. Canute (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Srich32977: — "injects the POV of the WP editor"?   On the contrary, the whole idea of removing all occurrences of both terms is to remove all POVs. As pointed out, there are seven instances of the term mercenaries, and seven auxiliaries. Yes, we are letting the readers make up their own minds by not using these labels and only presenting the facts as they are found in multiple reliable sources. There will be a footnote explaining how historians often use the two terms interchangeably, while others use one term or the other and have presented facts and ideas that support both terms. The article also explains how the Americans and their allies regarded the Hessians as mercenaries, while the British considered them as auxiliaries, which will remain in the narrative, so we will not be removing these terms entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hanover should be listed as a combatant and spain shouldn't be a co belligerent

hanover was in a personal union with great britain and there was troops from hanover in the americas and spain directly joined against great britain and wasn't just fighting great britain at the same time as the war happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBritishDoge (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism in the opening paragraph:

"... transforming the American State into a Serbian Vassal. " 2A02:8440:451A:1F58:0:23:2D6F:B701 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ending Date for Revolutionary War

Currently, the "ending date" is marked as September 3, 1783...which is the date of the Treaty of Paris. This looks out of step with how other conflicts are treated on Wikipedia - with the ending date marking the end of hostilities, rather than formal peace. WWI, for instance, is said to end on November 11 (the date of the Armistice), rather than June 28, 1919 (the date of the treaty of Versailles). The Spanish-American war is marked as ending August 13, 1898 (the date of a 'protocol for peace'), rather than December 10, 1898 (the date of the Treaty of Paris).

Suggest marking the end date either to October, 1781 (end of the Siege of Yorktown), or to early 1782 when the British Parliament forbid further offensive action. 2601:40E:8201:17C0:C173:BC07:86F2:1227 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request on July 6th, 2002

In the section "War breaks out," subsection "Early engagements," there's a sentence with a bunch of grammar and coherence problems. "The first action of the war was commonly referred to as the Shot heard round the world involved a brief skirmish at Lexington, followed by a full-scale battle during the Battles of Lexington and Concord."

1. The first letter of the word "shot" shouldn't be captalized. If that phrase is an official title, it should be "Shot Heard Round the World," "Shot Heard 'round the World," or "Shot Heard 'Round the World." Its origin, the Emerson poem, is written as "shot heard round the world" and there's no reason to change that here.
2. "The first action of the war...involved a brief skirmish..." This isn't logical. What else besides "a brief skirmish" comprised this "first action of the war?" Well, nothing. The word "involved" falsely tells readers otherwise so it should be replaced by "was."
3. If we stopped there, the first part of the sentence would be "The first action of the war was commonly referred to as the shot heard round the world was a brief skirmish at Lexington..." With or without the change from "involved" to "was," this isn't grammatical. Adding "and" after "world" would be an improvement but not much of one. The best phrasing here is "The first action of the war, commonly referred to as the shot heard round the world, was a brief skirmish at Lexington..."
4. Here's the second part of that sentence: "...followed by a full-scale battle during the Battles of Lexington and Concord." That's grammatically incorrect because the phrase "a full-scale battle," which is singular, describes the phrase "the Battles of Lexington and Concord," which is plural. Furthermore, its use of the word "battle" to describe "the Battles of Lexington and Concord" is redundant.
5. With or without that change, there's an error that's similar to the one regarding the word "involved." What besides "a full-scale battle" happened "during the Battles of Lexington and Concord?" Well, nothing. The word "during" falsely tells readers otherwise. The best phrasing here is "...followed by the full-scale Battles of Lexington and Concord." No matter what, the word "during" has to go.

WP:TLDR version. Change this:

The first action of the war was commonly referred to as the Shot heard round the world involved a brief skirmish at Lexington, followed by a full-scale battle during the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

to (and feel free to copy and paste) this:

The first action of the war, commonly referred to as the [[shot heard round the world]], was a brief skirmish at Lexington, followed by the full-scale [[Battles of Lexington and Concord]].

2600:1700:9AD0:4AB0:F524:DBE9:FBBC:5367 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good.  Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 13:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Corrections to lede

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I've taken the liberty to make the corrections I suggested for the lede with some moderate editing. I have a few other edits in mind, but nothing "major". I'm open to any and all suggestions and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede section ended on a redundancy. Apparently, a sentence had been tacked on as part of the question raised about the date of the war's end. This sentence repeated the full date/year for no reason. To resolve this, I shuffled the order of facts and cut the extra date and another redundancy. I think it worked out nicely.

Then I noticed that editors had asked "by consensus" that no changes be made to the lede without discussion. So I was left with a dilemma. Should I not save my edit, a significant improvement? Should I then revert my other changes and go through a several days process of gaining "consensus"? I decided that'd be nutty so I saved my change and will leave the other edits stand, but I won't touch anything else without a "chat" session. Allreet (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

All good improvements to article flow; perhaps an additional source may be needed to substantiate the 'Continental Association' that may not appear in the existing citation, as I remember it.

- But the Contintental Association CERTAINLY needs a paragraph later in the narrative as I have come to understand, because it is in effect a NATIONAL network set up to locally propose, establish, and enforce Congressional embargo policy, bypassing the individual (colonial) legislatures.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the source for the Continental Association, good point and easy to do. The same applies to the suggestion about a paragraph in the body on the embargo, along with a mention of the impact of the Congress's actions on the development of war.

Meanwhile, rather then start a new Talk topic, I noticed a discrepancy between the dates for Parliament's declaration that the colonies were in a state of rebellion. The lede says Parliament declared the rebellion in August 1775, but the section American Revolutionary War#Prelude to revolution, 2nd para under Break with the British Crown, uses the date February 9 (1775). I understand resolving this may require a bit of research, so I'm adding @Gwillhickers to the discussion. Both dates are possible but whether or not that's the case, some clarification should be made in both places because as it stands, the dates are confusing. His input would also be helpful regarding the Continental Association and First Continental Congress. Allreet (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The source on the date is Ferling's A Leap in the Dark, but the only mention of "state of rebellion" is in reference to the King's declaration (in September 1774 concurrent with but not related to the Congress's early sessions). I also searched on the date "February 9", unsuccessfully, though there is a reference on pp. 123-124 to parliamentary debate on the issue around this time, as well as information on Britain's awareness of the Continental Congress. I'm also going to look for a source on the lede's August 1775 assertion. All FYI's for those interested. Allreet (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"American Natives"

This phrase appeared only in the infobox. I've replaced it everywhere it appears by "Native Americans" since that's a more usual expression and what the rest of the article uses (except when it refers to "Indians"). Hairy Dude (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

While "Native Americans" is the term used in the article referenced, Hairy Dude (talk · contribs), I think it is also an inaccurate term for the following reasons. 1. it is a modern term used in the United States 2. Since the majority of the tribes at that time supported the Crown, I doubt they would've thought of themselves as Native Americans in the modern sense. 3. Many were located in what is now Canada where are the equivalent term is "First Nations" 4 The United Nations uses the term "indigenous people". (a globalisation issue?) The most accurate practice is to use the name of a tribe. That is what they called themselves. When that is either not possible or awkward, I believe the term "indigenous peoples" should be used. Do you agree with that change?

Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This article never seems to run out of controversies on what to call people, ha ha. I agree with Humphrey Tribble that, when practical, the name of the tribe(s) or the appropriate confederation should be used, especially since there was no universal response to the war by Native Nations. Beyond that, I'm not sure it matters. There are plenty of demographic terms from the late 18th century that we no longer consider appropriate, so we shouldn't trouble ourselves over whether a term is modern or not. After all, the article is for modern readers. Since the tag at the top of the article says to use American English, I would think that either "Native American" or "First Nations" would be appropriate, although there are still some who prefer "American Indian." The Native American name controversy will not be solved by us. Canute (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have done some research, Hairy Dude (talk · contribs) & Canute (talk · contribs) and found:

Native American is a government construct for the United States. It is preferred by only one third of the population affected. I agree that particular controversy will not be sourced by us.

The United Nations uses "Indigenous" to refer to all tribal peoples around the world.

Yes, the Wikipedia Manual of Style advises consistency in one particular variety of English. However, this is with regard to vocabulary, not identification. Even so, the MOS also says "For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." To me, that trumps national varieties of English and the oft-quoted "common name" at the same time.

Consistency is certainly necessary and I acknowledge that a decision on this issue could affect many articles. Therefore, I propose it be turned over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to request a policy and MOS recommendation.

Do you support this request? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: the word "sourced" should read "solved". Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to request a policy, feel free. I have no issue with "Native," "Indigenous," or even "Aboriginal." I think any of these get the point across to the average Wikipedia reader. No matter which term you use, though, someone is going to want to change it. 😉 A bigger issue- but perhaps more difficult to solve- is that this article sometimes refers to "Native" nations together as one group, when they were quite distinct. We don't do that for Europeans; we name them by their nation/state. Ideally, that's also what we would do for the various North American nations that became involved. Canute (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality for the Hessian soldier issue

@Dimadick, Dilidor, Peacemaker67, Rjensen, Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Humphrey Tribble:

You are being notified of the below RfC because you were once interested in this issue, which you had participated, and which has resurfaced on this Talk page. Please help us resolve this ongoing and reoccurring issue. If you know of any other editors who are interested in this issue please invite them.

The compromise reference of, per the ruling of the RFC for neutrality has been restored, per an overwhelming consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Mercenary v Auxiliary issue revisited

Back in April of this year, an effort was made and a RfC was conducted to resolve the years long reoccurring controversy involving the terms Mercenary and Auxiliary, and an overwhelming consensus among both American and British editors was established, that neither term be used in statements presenting either term as absolute fact. The info box thus reflected this compromise, but in May an editor came along and ignored that consensus. The info-box, once again, reflects that consensus, and acknowledges the use of both these terms among many reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Are you sure you don't want to re-visit that topic for the 20th time? 😅 Canute (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ohio County" in the Virginia General Assembly

Regarding “Ohio County” Virginia, I must put reconciling sources used on Wikipedia ‘on hold’. Nevertheless for the “tabled discussion” here, relating information from compiled by Cynthia Miller Leonard, published by the Virginia State Library, Richmond 1978, 884pp.

• Leonard, Cynthia Miller (1978). The General Assembly of Virginia: July 30,1619-January 11, 1978: A Bicentennial Register of Members. Richmond: Virginia State Library. p. 125+. ISBN 978-0884900085.

- Beginning with the House of Delegates, Speaker: George Wythe, Clerk: John Tazewell. Sessions: First. May 5-June 28, 1777, Second. October 20th, 1777-January 24, 1778, p. 125, and subsequent pages.

1A. 1777 - David McClure, George McColloch – “borderer” one of whose sisters married Ebenezer Zane and had 11 children together.

2A. 1778 - David McClure, Samuel McCullock

For a time Major Samuel McCulloch was commander of Fort Van Meter, a stockade fort, erected in 1774, situated on the north side of Short Creek, about five miles from its confluence with the Ohio, in Richland District, Ohio County. See [1]

3A. 1779 - Samuel McCullock, Andrew Robison

4A. 1780-81 - Samuel McCullock, Ebenezer Zane

- Major Samuel McCulloch dead on July 30, 1782 in an ambush near Girty’s Point.

- Both Isaac Zane Jr. and Ebenezer Zane became politically active, and represented the interests of northwestern Virginia in the Virginia Revolutionary Conventions and later in the Virginia House of Delegates. Ebenezer Zane and John Caldwell built fort Patrick Henry in 1774 on the bluffs at Wheeling (now West Virginia).

Ebenezer Zane and John Caldwell built Fort Patrick Henry in 1774. This was one of the largest and most important forts on the Virginia border. It was erected in part on the high bluff along what is now Market Street, in the city of Wheeling, in 1774, by Ebenezer Zane and John Caldwell, under the military direction of Major Angus McDonald. It was first designated as Fort Fincastle, in honor of the Viscount Fincastle, better known to Virginians as Lord Dunmore. He visited the post in the fall of 1774, with a command of twelve hundred men, during the "Point Pleasant Campaign." In 1777 the fort was rebuilt and much enlarged, embracing in all more than half an acre of ground, and renamed Fort Henry, in honor of Patrick Henry. The fort underwent a siege by Indians in 1777, and in September, 1782, was the scene of the last engagement of the American Revolution. See [2].

- Ebenezer Zane died Fall 1782, single-handedly defended his own house against Indian attackers.

- Ohio County voters also elected Ebenezer Zane several times as one of their representatives in the Virginia House of Delegates, but the district briefly changed into Yohogenia County (with different boundaries in 1781-1782).

- In 1788, Ohio County voters also elected Ebenezer Zane as one of their delegates to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, where he and voted in favor of ratification of the United States Constitution. However, the 1799 election was very close, and a court challenge unseated Zane and Benjamin Biggs in favor of one of the incumbents, William McKinley and John Morgan.

5A. 1782- no “Ohio” Delegate seated as reported in the Bicentennial Register of Members of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1619-1978. No Illinois County appears in this source.

1B. 1783 - Ebenezer Zane, David Shepard

- Fort Shepherd, erected in 1775 under the direction of Captain David Shepherd. It was a most important stockade fort at the forks of Wheeling Creek, near present Triadelphia, Ohio County. It was evacuated in September, 1777, and burned by the Indians, but rebuilt in 1786, and further extended In 1790. See [3].

2B. 1784-85 - Ebenezer Zane, David Shepard

3B. 1785-86 – David Bradford, David Shepherd

::- David Bradford - Throughout the early 18th century, what is now Washington County [Pennsylvania] was claimed by both Virginia and Pennsylvania. It wasn't until March 28, 1781, the drawing of the Mason–Dixon line officially gave this land to Pennsylvania. Washington County [Pennsylvania] was erected out of Westmoreland County [Pennsylvania] at that time …

- The following year, 1782, David Bradford, who was born in Maryland about 1760, came to town. Court records indicate that in April 1782 he was the sixth attorney to be admitted to the Washington County [Pennsylvania] Bar Association. A brilliant young lawyer, he quickly established a very successful practice, and by 1783 he had been appointed deputy attorney-general for Washington County. [later a leader of the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania]. See [4].

Also see Wikipedia: Augusta County, Virginia, and also District of West Augusta- Yohogania County, Virginia - Monongalia County, Virginia – Ohio County, Virginia perhaps three years ago, now removed? - 3.3.Illinois County, Virginia, county seat Kaskaskia from July 4, 1778 to 1784. The County was an official incorporated into Virginia, with legally defined boundaries a formal governmental structure, and two elected Delegates to the Virginia General Assembly.

• James, James Alton (1928). The Life of George Rogers Clark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-598-58542-4.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello to you, too. I read through your notes. What is your conclusion / recommendation for this article? Canute (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I say table the discussion, and the Talk page Archives can now have a searchable header "'Ohio County' in the Virginia General Assembly" for another go at the subject later on when there is more time to devote to it.

--- although if another Editor wants to pursue it, I'll undertake some additional searches. Long ago and far away, perhaps 40 years ago now, I remember finding an "Atlas of Virginia" of some description that included an "Ohio County" mapped for Virginia during the ARW (prior to 1783) in the region of what is now the State of Ohio,

and it was memorable to me at the time, because it was the location of a veteran's land patent awarded to one of my earlier family relations - by marriage as I remember in a vague sort of nostalgia - Where is Grandmother when you are finally old enough yourself to understand that you really need her treasure of family lore to understand ... anything?

but on my last visit to my local city Central Library, I do not remember seeing the previously sighted Atlas, and the shelving was less than one-third full, rather than filled but for one open space 40 years ago ....

Result: the Editorial copy edit, "stat." Let the Illinois County, Virginia place name convention adopted here with a Wikipedia wp:consensus, suffice for the present here at Talk, until there may be some further interest in doing the required spadework for a sourced alternative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok. We can table if you'd like. I would like to reiterate my 2¢ (before it's archived) that I don't think Virginia's temporary jurisdiction over western lands is a relevant topic for a broad article like this one. It would be much better handled in one of the many related articles that cover that specific theater of the war. Canute (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

And I'd like to say it is of some import: that the US territory ceded by Great Britain of the territory it had previous claimed at the Treaty of Paris between the US and UK included the new US "Northwest Territory", conquered by Virginia Militia led by Virginia-commissioned Major George Rogers Clark at Virginia's initiative, at Virginian expense with the material assistance and military cooperation by Spanish Governor Bernardo de Gálvez, an honorary US citizen.

How the US acquired the NW Territory during the ARW by military operations west to the Mississippi River --- for what would become five states in OH, IN, MI, IL and WI --- is relevant to a discussion of the ARW for the "broad" understanding of US territorial boundaries confirmed in the Treaty of Paris (1783) which concluded the war, the American Revolutionary War article's topic and focus.

Along the same line of reasoning, I would OBJECT to dismissing all article reference to Quebec or the St. Lawrence region in this article, even though (a) New York never succeeded in conquering and administering the city nor (b) giving it representation in the NY Assembly (however 'briefly', such as Virginia's five (5) years in the 'Illinois Country' 1777-1783), nor (c) acquiring territory north of the Great Lakes for British cession to the US at the Treaty of Paris. NO, all references to Rebel military operations north of the Great Lakes would NOT "be much better handled in one of the many related articles that cover that specific theater of the war" as User:Canute might have it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe you either misunderstand or misrepresent my position. I am not against including the Western theater of the war at all. To the contrary, I am probably more interested in the Western theater than most. However, I am cautious that we should not devote undue space to the legal status of the western frontier or the people who lived there in an article that is trying to span the entire war. I'm merely suggesting that as these topics take more time to explain, they are better handled in more specific articles, just like we do for every single other topic (biographies, battles, treaties, etc.) Canute (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood. AGREED. Elsewhere WP Editors can sort out whether the proper county name in Virginia for the five years 1777-1783 which encompassed the Vincennes and other French-speaking settlements will be called "Illinois County, Virginia" or "Ohio County, Virginia", and then the takeaway wp:consensus will be used here at ARW. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Canadiens from Virginia ?

Note b says "Canadien militia recruited from western Quebec (Ohio County, Virginia) at the county seat of Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes". The parenthetical reference to Virginia doesn't make sense to me. If I'm missing something, perhaps it needs an exclamation. If not perhaps it should be deleted. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

KEEP REPLACE WITH Illinois County, Virginia.

1. Virginia had 1600s colonial land-grant claims to the territory north of the Ohio River to the Pacific Ocean prior to its becoming a Royal Colony.

2. George Rogers Clark commanding Virginia militia conquered the territory between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes from the British Empire during the American Revolution. He was able to do so with materiel support of Governor Bernardo de Gálvez of the Spanish "Luisiana Territory", along with reinforcements of men, equipment, and powder from Canadien militia in settlements there, from west of the Mississippi, and more notably from Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes. These were also joined by their Native American trading partners who were previously military allies of the French Empire during the French and Indian War.

- At the time, France and Spain had a defensive treaty to support one another in the Western Hemisphere, which was another reason for the formerly French subjects to fight against continuing British North American occupations.

- The francophone populations living on the western bank of the Mississippi supplied militia contingents to Gálvez to remove British garrisons along the western bank of the Mississippi south of the Ohio.

3. The previous more easterly located Ohio County The "Western District of Augusta", Virginia which had been indirectly represented in the Virginia Assembly [by Delegates from Augusta County], was reformed into three Virginia Counties. In the westernmost, Virginia admitted Francophone settlements within the British Empire's western "Quebec Province" south of the Great Lakes, into Illinois County, Virginia as citizens and enfranchised voters who elected two Virginia General Assembly Delegates, with the new County Court House moved west to established in Cahokia.

4. French plantation owners in the region had maintained an enslaved workforce as had other French colonials in the Caribbean, were allowed to maintain the practice. As Virginians and unlike the British Imperial rule in Quebec's "Ohio Country" Illinois Country, public worship in Roman Catholic churches, chapels and missions were allowed by the State of Virginia. During Canadien militia operations with Major Clark, and subsequently following eviction of the British Army, the region's Roman Catholic priests offered no objection to the US Virginian state government which accepted public practice of the Catholic religion replacing the British Quebec Provincial government which had outlawed it.

5. French colonial slavery persisted in the "Ohio Country" that later became the US "Northwest Territory". That slavery was "grandfathered" into the State of Illinois at statehood admission to the Union. Slavery as a race-based system of workforce was not abolished in Illinois until its second Governor Edward Coles, former secretary and plantation neighbor to Thomas Jefferson in the Valley of Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs). If I am interpreting your comments correctly, the impression of Canadiens being located simultaneously in"western Quebec", "north-western Virginia", and "Louisiana" arises from pre-revolution indistinct/shifting/unsettled boundaries in the Ohio region. For future readers less familiar with history in that area, could it be clarified in the footnote by, say, "during a period of shifting boundaries" or something to explain that western Quebec did in fact coincide with Ohio and Virginia? Perhaps just "[sic]" would do, or link it to an appropriate article.

I know the British allowed French language, laws, and religion to remain in Quebec as the price for loyalty, but perhaps that wasn't until later. I have always found it odd that the British, in result, swapped the 13 colonies for New France. Isn't history interesting! Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

On the original question, I agree that the reference to "Ohio County, Virginia" doesn't make sense as written. In both instances, it links to Ohio County, West Virginia, which is not the region being referenced. Although Virginia had claims on the region, it was only one of multiple competing claims- not the least of which was from the peoples inhabiting the region. The reference to Virigina's claim on the region only really makes sense in the context of the Western theater, which is largely between Kentucky (directed by Virginia) and Native Nations. Beyond that, a history of claims on the Northwest Territory is a distraction on this article, and is better handled in articles more specific to the region. Canute (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As shown in the map at Second Virginia Charter (1609), Virginia was given title to all land stretching from its shores to the Pacific and Arctic oceans. But certainly that right was extinguished by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that declared the western territories to be part of the British province of Quebec. TFD (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Illinois County, Virginia? TFD (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur with User:The Four Deuces, Illinois County, Virginia, it should be.

- @Canute:

- 1. Competing scholarly claims among map-makers are all moot and futile as historical narrative. They amount to merely idle table-talk "counter-factuals" because, in Illinois County, Virginia, (a) settlement in the "disputed" territory was by Virginians, in an incorporated Virginian County, with representation in the Virginia Assembly and no other, and (b) settlements of Virginian residents there (i) acknowledged the authority of Virginia by paying Virginia taxes, and (ii) accepted the protection of its laws by conducting their courts and militias in accordance with Virginia statutes, and no other, to my knowledge.

- 2. At Independence of the United States, the "Royal Proclamation of 1763" which was not only (a) unconstitutional power-grabbing for the "German King"'s private gain by trading with Native Americans apart from Parliament's authorization bills, (b) illegal under British custom and law in reference to the Royal (Stuart) Colony of Virginia, but then the pretended 'proclamation' also became (c) by international law, null and void as an unauthorized and unsubstantiated assertion by an alienated Crown directed towards an independent republic, which was a separate and equal nation-state among the powers of the world, as later acknowledged by George III of Britain in a Paris-signed treaty before the Bourbon powers on earth.

@Humphrey Tribble: My apologies, so: "Good eye!", yes, the proper Virginia County to reference is Illinois County, Virginia.  Done Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The validity of the Royal Proclamation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1863). Had it not been, then all the land that was once part of the North West Territory would still be legally owned by Native Americans. Do you have any evidence that anyone in the U.S, objected to the proclamation? My understanding is that they objected to the subsequent Quebec Act of 1774.

Also, if the 1763 proclamation did not abridge Virginia's territorial rights, wouldn't Alaska now be part of that state?

Any, I think the text should say that they were in part of western Quebec which had been seized by the State of Virginia and re-named the county of Illinois. TFD (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about "idle table-talk." My argument is that this is not the appropriate article to discuss the claims over the vast area by any individual colony / state, unless it is somehow directly tied to the narrative. This topic would be better explained in a supporting article. To the original question, I agree that it doesn't make sense to refer to a group as "Canadiens" and then say they're from Virginia. Again, that's a complex topic that distracts from the narrative. Canute (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow. You mean "Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. William M'Intosh", perhaps? The actual case as transcribed by the Cornell Law School [5] reads more clearly than the introduction to the Wikipedia article which may site the same Supreme Court case.

- The Court held that since Native American tribes held land in common, there could be no legal purchase of their lands by individuals from individuals. And that holding is consistent with Marshall's later overturning the Georgian gold rush speculator claims on Cherokee lands during the Jackson administration.

- Virginia cedes all of its western claims into the US Northwest Territory, as negotiated during the Articles Congress by Thomas Jefferson, concurrently with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and somebody else, I think.

- At the time, all states and the US Congress were bound by the US-British Treaty of Paris limiting all contemporary land claims of the US west to the Mississippi River, as signed in Paris (before and without the Euros at Versailles), and thus excluding the User:Canute "Alaska" straw man, as Alaska was claimed, colonized and taxed by Russia at the time, a trade partner of the US since during the Revolution via the First League of Armed Neutrality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevance of the decision is that Virginians could hold title to land in the territory because it had been ceded to Great Britain, which then distributed the land to successors whose titles remained secure because of the legality of the original acquisition. That's not of course to say that it was politically correct as understood today. But if you disagree with the interpretation in the Wikipedia article, feel free to amend it.

The Virginia Charter btw gave the colony rights to all lands to the Pacific and Arctic Oceans. While Virginia may have ceded its portion of the Northwest Territory, do you have any sources that they ceded Alaska? My understanding is that any original claims west of their 1774 borders was made moot by the Royal Proclamation and their Western claims were based on conquest. If I am wrong, please provide a source, rather than some argument that ties the royal family to the Germany and the Bourbons.

TFD (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how slavery or Alaska came up in this conversation. I've twice stated my simple opinion, that this is a larger topic for a different article. No need for insults. Canute (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Under the Second Virginia Charter 1609, Virginia was given title to all lands inland stretching to the Arctic and Pacific oceans, although their actual settlement never reached far beyond the Atlantic coast (see the map in the linked article.) But the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was to extinguish Virginia's rights to lands in what had been New France, which became a new British colony. TVH is right btw that one effect of the proclamation was that Americans could not buy land from Indians. Indians could however cede their land to the British crown and later the U.S. government, which could then award those lands to settlers. So the proclamation was indeed accepted as law in the U.S. In fact all imperial laws remained in force in the various states and territories of the U.S. until repealed. TFD (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Virginian "Francophones" versus Virginian "Canadiens"

I think our more accomplished Wiki Editors will find my earlier post in the article in this section described the French-speaking militia who fought with Virginia Militia Major George Rogers Clark, and who subsequently voluntarily became tax paying Virginia citizens, as "Francophone Virginians" rather then our French-Canadian Editors preferred use of 'Canadiens' in the section narrative here a ARW.

The editorial choice here should not cover up the participation and incorporation of former French subjects (still speaking French in the home) into the new American republic. They should not be excluded in the American story either prior to the French Revolution, nor afterwards among the white Caribbean diaspora who found new homes in Charleston SC, and in Kentucky Mississippi River port cities (French was still spoken among many New Orleans river boatmen well into the 1800s).

- Those good Francophone-neighbors-made-Virgina-citizens and, voters --- before they were qualified for US citizenship --- whom the John Adams administration sought to deport with the Alien Acts - leading to the [[Virginia Kentucky Resolutions] (as our French Canadian friends may recall).

I am happy to write this article entirely in American-English dialect were I to get an RfC vote, but at the time, lots of us were trying to be collegial with our Canadian neighbors to the north, in light of some, at the time, heated wiki-fencing on 'War of 1812' and 'American Revolution' Talk pages.

- But what exactly impels editors to purge French speakers from American history articles as "distracting from the narrative" . . . is it to be white, Anglo-Saxon, English speaking Protestants ONLY need apply in the new, clear, uncomplicated narratives, a sort of dystopian historiography here? I object! to any such notion of excluding either Catholics or speakers of non-English in their homes who are related to the ARW narrative as reliably sourced. Do not erase them.

PROPOSED: "Francophone militias", "Francophone settlers" in Illinois County, Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Throughout the article we use the terms that were used at the time. These royalists who fought for the United States called themselves Canadians, using the French spelling, which we should also call them. (The English term at the time referred to French speaking settlers. English speaking settlers were called Americans. Their descendants in Canada would later also call themselves Canadians.) TFD (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Good editorial choice in general, but for the likelihood that modern readers will misunderstand "Canadian" as mother-tongue English-speaker Canadians such as guitarist Gordon Lightfoot, while disregarding post-1763 mother-tongue French-speaker Canadians, because their modern-day Quebecois descendants such as guitarist André Marchand call themselves "Canadiens", just as the earlier Canadian Editort-contributor suggested.

The narrative point to convey in the ARW section is that frontier settlements of previously French subjects -- within the post-1763 British North American interior who had maintained their trade with Native American tribes beyond the reach of British commercial treaties -- joined the American Cause in alliance with the Spanish of Luisiana Territory under Governor Galvez.

- Galvez had recruited numbers of the French Empire's "Canadian" diaspora from the British Great Expulsion in the Caribbean to resettle at New Orleans, another socio-political connection among the North American Thirteen original colonies, French settlements, and Spanish settlements in alliance 1774-1783 against the British Empire in North America.

Perhaps we can use the term, "French-speaking Canadians", then. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall the article, but some years back there was a similar debate, and it was decided that "Canadians" or "Canadiens" were inappropriate, since it implied a modern nationality. You may agree or disagree, I'm just summarizing the result of the discussion. I think your choice of "Franophone" is fine. "Francophone Virginians" is problematic for multiple reasons. They were there long before the Virginians came along, and as the Virginians / Kentuckians settled in the area, there was a sharp distinction drawn between the two populations which led to a number of disputes. Although they were governed by Virginia for a short time (Virginia gave up their claim the year after the war ended), they lived under British rule for a longer period of time, yet we don't call them "Francophone British." So unless someone has a better term, I like your idea of simply keeping it at "Francophone." Canute (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There's also the issue of whether French territory south of the Great Lakes was ever called Canada. I don't like however using the 20th century term, mostly used after WWII, francophone to describe people in the 18th century. Why not just call them French-speaking settlers or colonists? TFD (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, too. But don't be too concerned with Francophone, we use a lot of modern terms for our modern readers. I'd be more concerned that a lot of readers might not know what "Francophone" means. 😆 Canute (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

To summarize, we could use the phrase "militias from early French-speaking settlements in the Mississippi Valley", shortened for later use in the section to "French militia"?

- Perhaps with one of three explanatory notes:

- Note [Alternate #1] with links to various related articles, describing the New France settlement remnants in 1776 (a) on the west bank of the Mississippi River within Spain's Luisiana Territory, versus (b) those east of the Mississippi, and north of the Ohio River, versus (c) the reassembled Cajuns of the Acacian Great Expulsion diaspora to Spanish New Orleans, versus (d) the post American Revolution welcome of returnees as Quebequois of the British Empire.

- or Note [Alternate #2], (a), (b); or Note [Alternate #3], (a),(b),(c).

I'm pretty flexible ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps the approach should be that common terms of the day be employed, which is what the sources typically use, and where appropriate, piped links are added to clarify any confusion that may arise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I used to think the same thing, but I now disagree. This article is written for modern readers, not 18th century readers, and we should use the terms most common and appropriate to people today. Besides, there are some terms that were common in the 18th century which we would not use today, so it's in our own best interest not to pick and choose. I think it's fine to mention the terms and phrases they might have used, but otherwise I think we should keep the language as simple as possible. But I might change my mind again, one day. Canute (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Militias from early French-speaking settlements in the Mississippi Valley" seems fine, although I think that "early" is unnecessary. I don't think that Acadians btw were ever called Quebecois. Acadia was ceded to Britain before Quebec was and the returnees actually came back before the U.S. revolution. TFD (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Canute: — Am in partial agreement actually. Off hand I can't think of any term used way back when that would be more or less ambiguous today. In any event, we should employ terms used by the sources, and e.g. in many cases they use terms like American Indians, rather than the politically correct term of "Native Americans", introduced by white politicians to appease their (would be) critics, and esp since in those days the Indians did not consider themselves as American in any sense of the term. As for the term "Francophone"...I dunno. Of course, and obviously, I'm a 21st century individual, but still have never heard that term. Is it used by the sources on average, or even close? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's used in the current Canadian language debate to describe people who speak French as a first language. My concern about using modern terms to periods before they were coined is that terminology develops when new terms are required to describe a changed environment. While strictly speaking the term could describe people in New France, its modern usage is to describe people in a state with two official languages, most of whom speak English in addition to their native French. TFD (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the term 'Canadiens' is correct, appropriate, and unambiguous for the people who settled in New France and spread into the interior of the continent at that time. Whether or not it is technically accurate, "Francophone Virginians" is a hideous construction which will mislead or confuse readers. All that is needed is a short sentence explaining that some Canadiens in the region came under the jurisdiction of the colony of Virginia as a result of shifting borders.

As for "Native Americans", the term might be political but it is not correct according to the UN and most of the people so named. In particular, this modern invention is inappropriate for the indigenous people of North America at the time of the American War of Independence. Please read the preceding discussion "American Natives". All over the world, the word "indigenous" is quickly replacing other terms for the original inhabitants of land whenever an endonym can't be used. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Just redirecting the "Native American" term back where it belongs: Talk:American_Revolutionary_War#"American_Natives". Also, I refer everyone again to the article Native American name controversy; if you have the solution, you might want to let them know. 😉 Canute (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

'Canadian' versus 'Frenchman'

I am confused about the place names of different parts of New France. Were these people referred to as Canadians, or was the term limited to people north of the Great Lakes? TFD (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. According to canada.ca, the term "Canada" was used to cover all of the American midwest in the 1700s, but the name didn't become official until 1791, by which time there was a defined boundary between the United States and British North America. (See Origin of the name "Canada" - Canada.ca) When it was controlled by France, the region south of the Great Lakes was divided between Quebec and Louisiana, but both were far from this region and it a remote frontier. None of this means that the people living in the Illinois country were called Canadians, though. I just searched Clark's memoir- certainly not a comprehensive study, but it's at least a contemporary source- and he uses "Canada" to mean the British territories beyond Detroit. He refers to the residents he found in Illinois country as "Frenchmen" or "French inhabitants." I'm not sure that I've ever read a source which referred to them as "Canadians," but I will let you know if I find one. Canute (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So that sounds like "Canadian" means a resident who was actively administered by a British imperial Province, and "Frenchmen" means the remote settlers of the previous 'New France' who may have traded with natives and again as middlemen at a licensed British trading post, but otherwise were not known to the British Imperial tax rolls. . . . ? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if we can say they were unknown. There were British officers and agents in the region, administering from some of the larger villages like Kaskaskia. Canute (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the term Canadian was first used to refer to a "native or inhabitant of Canada" in 1759,[6] the year of Wolfe's victory on the Plains of Abraham. The term does not appear in the Treaty of Paris or the Royal Proclamation of 1763, but there is a reference to "his Majesty's Canadian Subjects within the Province of Quebec" in the Quebec Act of 1774. I have not come across the term used to describe people outside the province. It wasn't for example used to describe Acadians.

They probably would have avoided calling them Frenchmen however, because they were now British not French subjects.

TFD (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. I'm curious how the British referred to their French-speaking subjects. We know that there were many French speaking residents on the frontier who never fully embraced their new status as "British" subjects. This partially explains why they initially supported the Virginians when they arrived. But as we learn when reading about the next couple of decades, they didn't fully assimilate as United States citizens, either. Augustin de La Balme apparently found they still had loyalties to France, though he might have over-estimated their enthusiasm; and he referred to them as "French." That's just another anecdote, though, and I don't think we can refer to them simply as "French" because that causes a great deal of confusion with the actual French forces that arrive in the U.S. Canute (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've scanned a variety of sources, and I'm not getting a definitive answer. So far, "French" seems to be the most common description for the French speaking people in this region, notwithstanding the obvious problems that presents to us in this article. FWIW, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 recognizes the "laws and customs" of "the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents and the neighboring villages." Canute (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

- OKAY #1. Clark in his memoirs 'pulls the whiskers' of wartime British imperial administrators by calling the settlement militias joining the Virginia militia's advances of British military positions, "Frenchmen" when they were French-speaking settlers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

- OKAY #2. The wartime British Imperial administrators preferred "British subjects of Canada [Province] and Quebec [Province]" - reference period maps here on WP; British officials did not want to call French-speakers "Frenchmen" while they were subjects within their Empire. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

- OKAY #3. We can always count on the US Congress in committee(s) to throw a wide net over any topic, using multiple noun phrases to serve as the SUBJECT of a sentence, when one noun might serve the purpose.

- - So we have, "the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents and the neighboring villages",

- which may include (a) "white Indian" owner-operators of licensed and unlicensed UK and US trading posts and their immediately adjacent settlement within the same indigenous language group tribal areas, or (b) maroon settlements of ethic unions from New France and tribal fragments defeated in the French and Indian War ...

- And now, to my first awakening cognizance, though only annecdotally so far, UNLIKE the loyal State-citizen French-speakers referenced in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, federal court cases filed in their behalf, and instructions to State US Senators to amend the offending Federalist legislation,

- - IN THE Illinois Country French-speakers, . . . "they didn't fully assimilate as United States citizens, either...Augustin de La Balme found they still had loyalties to France" ... so there was some good basis for the Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts, with the Spanish blocking free trade on the Mississippi River violating the Treaty of Paris etc., etc., which is a consideration that I had not taken seriously before.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"French inhabitants, or others ..."

Allow me to continue complicating this seemingly simple issue. Most of what we are referring to as the "Illinois Country" was not a part of Canada. It was assigned to Louisiana in 1717, although Quebec and Louisiana would continue to petition for control. Exact borders were never officially defined, but a draft from Quebec in 1745 recommended the Vermilion River and Illinois River as the boundary between the two. (See Administration of the Illinois Country: The French Debate) In the Treaty of Paris (1763), Louisiana was divided along the Mississippi, and the region East of the river was granted to Great Britain. In article IV, which guarantees freedom to practice the Catholic religion or evacuate, the treaty refers to residents as "French inhabitants, or others who had been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada." Canute (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Under nationality law at the time, when a territory was transferred, the subjects remaining there usually had their allegiance transferred automatically. However, this did not happen unless the the new state exercised control over the territory, which it appears neither the British or Americans did. Indians in the Northwest for example were not considered British subjects or American nationals until the U.S. came into full control of the territory.

Another issue was that nationality law was not fully developed in the 1700s.

TFD (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Canute: I recommend the Quebec Act article, with particular attention to the social and political distinctions in how British N.Am. Francophones received the 1774 Quebec Act after the previous British Imperial rule of “ten years”.

- 1. The Proclamation Line of 1763 presumed to removed lands previously ceded by indigenous tribes to colonial New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia --- territory which had then been lawfully populated with their subjects. After c.1770, George III presumed to administer his Proclamation ex-post facto, contrary to Common Law and the Rights of Englishmen.

• 
  Map showing original boundaries of Quebec and 1774 Quebec Act
• 
  British N.America 1777, with Quebec reducing coastal colonies.

- 2. The German King George supposed he could remove both NY and PA lands which previously extended west to the Great Lakes, and VA’s lands west to the Ohio River. In doing so, the Crown set off severe political divisions and occasionally tribal civil wars between customary tribal authority which had made peace, versus the now British imperial-funded and armed young braves who sought coup by raiding the colonial settlements without elder authority. See Lord Dunmore’s War for additional ‘complications’.

- 3. At the Quebec Act initiated in 1774, there was a divide between (a) cosmopolitan St. Laurence River Valley French gentry and clergy, versus (b) the French ‘peasantry’ who had been roughly used 1763-1774. Apparently Catholic priests had encouraged the 'peasants' those ten years to remain loyal to church parishes before Imperial fiat made Catholic worship lawful in 1774. Yes, the German King-in-Parliament had POSTPONED implementing provisions cited by User:Canute in the 1763 Treaty of Paris for a decade until 1774, and there may have been some further delay for months in its implementation into the remote French settlements just east of the Mississippi River, as I remember conditions of British imperial administration prevailing at the time.

- 4. British Imperial administrators reported the 'unhappy news' about "French peasantry" to Westminster: they had been taught to be contemptuous of their English masters for now ten years, and now they were outspokenly dismissive of attempts to recruit them into Royal militias, without any of the previous deference they had shown to the earlier colonial administrators of New France. They would not join British militias under British commanders to fight British colonial “Rebels” of the Thirteen Colonies, as they had cheerfully done under French officers fighting to maintain French Imperial North America.

- 5. Apparently the English merchants in the Quebec of the Quebec Act were satisfied even with the legalization of the Catholic religion, but New Englanders resettled into appropriated Acacian lands after the Great Removal were just as noncompliant as the French peasantry it seems, as a handful of their elected representatives sought to send representatives to the Thirteen’s Continental Congress protesting the Intolerable Acts, including the aforementioned Quebec Act, but they were voted down in their British colonial assembly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the Quebec Act for the specific question of what to call the French inhabitants. The Quebec Act mentions them in the past tense as (former) "Subjects of France." Other than that, it uses the term "inhabitants" and "Persons resident." When granting freedom to practice Catholicism, it refers to them as "His Majesty's Subjects, professing the Religion of the Church of Rome." So like the other sources, it doesn't give us a definitive answer. Canute (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There were also French protestants, some of whom had been appointed to high office by the British governor.[7] TFD (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

We've dug pretty deep on a question that should only affect a few words in this article. Can we just keep it simple and call them French speaking inhabitants, or something similar? Any exposition on their legal status, or the nominal jurisdiction on the frontier are only going to distract from the narrative. Permit me to make a general recommendation: let's consolidate all the current info on the Illinois campaign under the "Western Campaign" subsection, and then we can focus on that one section instead of details that are spread all over the article. Facts and details that give the section undue weight from the rest of the article can be moved to Western theater of the American Revolutionary War or some other relevant article (i.e. Illinois County, Virginia, Virginia in the American Revolution, Northwest Territory, etc.). I'm not saying this would resolve all our questions here, but it should at least make it easier to discuss the people in the region. Canute (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

We examined whether we can determine their nationality or under whose jurisdiction they lived. I think we concluded that it is not clear, especially considering that British, French and American law might differ. To complicate things, nationality law was not clear and even in modern law, the UK and U.S. differ on when American nationality was created. So we are best not to come down on one side of the issue, and just say that they were French speaking people in disputed territory. We also discussed whether they should be called "Francophones" and there was agreement that few people would understand the term. TFD (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Canute: Good eye. "Let's consolidate all the current info on the Illinois campaign under the "Western Campaign" subsection, and then we can focus on that one section instead of details that are spread all over the article."

- More discussion to follow, I am sure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"the US would not sign another treaty until the NATO agreement in 1949"

This is a very odd statement. The United States signed dozens of treaties before signing the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. The Revolutionary War itself was ended by a treaty (the Treaty of Paris of 1783); other American wars were ended by treaties (the Treaty of Ghent for the War of 1812, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for the Mexican War, and so on); there were peace treaties with the "Barbary States" and border treaties and treaties regarding "commerce and navigation" and various other matters with many other countries. (See the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, which includes the texts of dozens of such treaties from the 19th century alone.) 74.232.6.74 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Good eye. Thank you. The sentence is revised to reflect the context given in the source; the US and France would not sign another treaty with one another until their NATO treaty of 1949. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)