Talk:Olive Branch Petition

message: "The Crown had decided to teach the rebellious colonies—who had recently gone so far as to capture Fort Ticonderoga—a lesson." 
Smells of bias.
Well, maybe he was retaliating. Or the person that was using this used it as a metaphor-thing. My teacher pretty much said the same thing as that when she taught us this stuff.
There is a statement in the entry on the Olive Branch petition which says that Dickinson made specific recommendations (having to do with free trade and levying taxes) as to how the King should appease the colonists, .  This is at least misleading as no such statement is made in the Petition itself.  Perhaps Dickinson made this suggestion elsewhere, but I am unaware of it. 71.242.51.25 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to point out the same passage. I hadn't even read the petition when I first came to this article (I've just read it through now), but that sentence immediately leapt out as unlikely because it claims that Dickinson suggests reducing Americans' tax burden to the level in Great Britain. This is obvious nonsense, since the colonists were of course far more lightly taxed than the population of Britain (indeed, were among the most lightly taxed populations in the world); their problem wasn't with the level of taxation, but rather that the taxes were imposed by Parliament rather than their own provincial legislatures. The only actual steps the petition asks for, so far as I can see, are the establishment of a lasting settlement ("concord") between Britain and the colonies that's not inconsistent with British national dignity, and the repeal of the Intolerable Acts. Seeing as how such a statement has apparently stood for thirteen years, I'm going to replace it. Binabik80 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Wikisource: Olive Branch Petition(in External links) and other sources show an adoption date of July 8 while other sources show July 5. Can someone confirm the date and make an appropriate correction in either location.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Second Continental Congress approved the Olive Branch Petition on July 5, 1775, and sent it to England on July 8. The July 8 date on the document is the day Congress shipped it to England. See  and  for July 5, and  for July 8. Seattle (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date clarification request 

message: In this edit comment,  takes issue with my attempt to represent the facts. Can anyone seriously contend that the people of the 13 colonies were unanimous in considering the Second Continental Congress to be their representatives? If that were the case, there would have been no Loyalists and the revolution would have been much quicker. Does Dilidor think the voice of the encyclopedia should endorse the terminology used by that one faction in the dispute? If not, what constructive wording can they suggest, rather than blindly reverting? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly, is there any objection to improving the citation, which was also undone in the same edit?  The website is clearly not a complete nor a reliable representation of the source text, the detailed history of which is fully available at , , , , , et. seq. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Sort of. They were elected, but by the provincial assemblies or legislatures, not by the people. The point, though, is that the Congress itself was an extralegal (or North`s government would have to say illegal) assembly. According to the extant British law it would have been tantamount to high treason for Parliament to acknowledge either the Union or the Congress as representative without passing an authorizing bill through Parliament (both the Commons and the Lords) to obtain Royal Assent. Neither North`s government nor George III was in a tenable position to do so, especially so soon after the Bill of Rights 1689. Both were principally concerned with the domestic (unwritten) constitutional issue: peace between the Crown and the Parliament had to be maintained. See Andrew O'Shaughnessy's The Men Who Lost America for a fresh perspective. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

text: At that time there was no such thing as an American citizen. That came much later. Even the literal text of the Petition acknowledges the sovereignty of the King. The grievance it expressed was against North's government (the "Ministry" as they put it). The tragedy was that, by fighting before grieving, the militants had ensured the passage of the Proclamation of Rebellion which would preclude any possibility of the King ever officially reading that petition or any other representation from the (so-declared) rebels until it was far too late for peace. Adams & co did an end-run on Dickinson's moderates. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding the POV of the congress 

message: Please fix the dates - the 6 July declaration on taking up arms cannot follow a 8 July petition. --CopperKettle 11:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Olive Branch was written on July 5; the Declaration of Causes was written on July 6. Olive Branch was signed on July 8. Hope that clarifies.  —Dilidor (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 5 or July 8, and what followed what? 

message: Consider  for a more balanced source. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Better source

message: This article only part-way answers the questions a reader would consult an encyclopedia for. Fortunately, a WikiSource link is provided to supply the actual petition.  But due to the archaic style of that document, few people could recite, in say 5 minutes, what it actually asks for.
What is needed is an article paragraph, "Contents", between "Drafting" and "Reception", that describes the contents of the Petition, point-by-point. 
In fact, many of the points mentioned in the Petition, in this day, require references to explain what the Continental Congress meant and what the actual grievance was.
This shouldn't be that difficult.
71.230.16.111 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Have at it, then.  —Dilidor (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a useful article!