Talk:Thirteen Colonies

message: Did the Declaration form the USA or did the Constitution?
The Declaration mentions the "United States of America," but did that mean "states of America united in revolution," rather than the Union which was created with ratification of the Constitution several years later? The founders spent years after the war negotiating the Constitution to form the Union. In 1776, they were states, they were in America, they were united in revolution, but were they the "United States of America" as we've known it since 1789? 
Just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: all the textbooks and reliable sources say 1776, as well as official national birthday on July 4. Lots of countries write new constitutions but remain the same country. France & other countries recognized the new USA diplomatically in before 1789.   Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but what exactly do those source say? We declared our independence, it's our birthday, but did the "USA" formally result? soibangla (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The new USA acted as a national government,  created a national army under GW, was recognized in Europe, and made treaties in the name of USA -- all before 1789 Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But federal government providing common defense, unified foreign policy and regulation of interstate commerce (and the POTUS) were established by the Constitution. Founders drafted Articles of Confederation in 1777, but later ditched it in favor of stronger federal government in the Constitution. My point is that the Declaration did not create the Union that we now call USA, despite the Declaration using those words. The lead sentence makes it seem it did. soibangla (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What we NOW consider USA was created in 1860s. Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "declared independence in 1776 and formed the United States of America" 

message: Any data about the total extension of the territory? have not seen any and I think it would be nice to know the territorial extension of the 13 colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.25.7.64 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial extension 

message: I think we could approximate and state the area size 197.186.8.45 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area size 

message: The two statements that you removed, and that I restored, and that you removed again, were duly supported by citations of what I assumed were reliable sources.  (In addition one can read about it in linked Wikipedia articles, and in a later section of this article, Thirteen Colonies#Slavery.)  The burden of proof is on you to show that there was something wrong with them. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: yes slavery in all 13 in 1775: quote "all  the thirteen colonies sanctioned slaveholding on the eve of the Revolution" cite= Wiecek, William M. “The Statutory Law of Slavery and Race in the Thirteen Mainland Colonies of British America.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, 1977, pp. 258–80. at p. 260 online at  https://doi.org/10.2307/1925316   See also at pp. 261-264 "By the time of the Revolution, each of the mainland  colonies had at least the rudiments of a statutory law of slavery...and nine of them had fairly elaborate slave codes that specified four basic legal characteristics of American slavery.  First, the statutes defined slavery as a lifetime condition, distinguishing it from servitude and other forms of unfree status, which lasted only for a term of years. Second...slave status was made hereditable through the mother. In so providing, the American  colonies reversed the common-law rule that personal status followed the condition of the father.... The third fundamental statutory characteristic of American slavery was racial identification....The fourth and most troublesome of the elements of slavery for colonial  legislators was the precise legal status of a slave as property.... southern jurisdictions ...settled on the legal definition of a slave as a "chattel personal."  [quoting from pp 261-264] Rjensen (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Yep, Vermont (as an independent entity) abolished in 1777; Pennsylvania introduced gradual emancipation in 1780; Massachusetts courts ended slavery there (including the District of Maine) with the Quock Walker Case in 1783. Gradual emancipation plans were passed in Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784 and New York in 1817. New Jersey passed very gradual emancipation in 1804. An 1857 constitutional change in New Hampshire effectively barred slavery. The 1790 Census (see: ) recorded enslaved people in every state enumerated except Massachusetts (including the District of Maine) and Vermont (not yet a state). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Dutch role in the Atlantic slave trade (at least as it applies to the Thirteen Colonies, the given source states: "The first Africans recorded to have arrived in English Virginia came on a Dutch vessel in 1619; they had actually been seized from a Portuguese slaver by an English privateer working in partnership with the Dutch ship. ... Thereafter, Dutch vessels brought only a slightly larger number of slaves to the English mainland colonies, as first Brazil and then English Barbados consumed nearly every enslaved body the WIC could provide. ... That they were able to make the transition was largely due to expertise, personnel, and enslaved African labor provided by the Dutch of Brazil and Curaçao." Beyond this, the New Netherland Institute documents the role of enslaved Africans in New Netherland; so it's not just Dutch traders selling people to Virginia and Barbados, but enslaved Africans being brought to the Dutch colony in North America, too. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

text: The law was officially overturned in 1703 at the colony level. "America's First Anti-Slavery Statute Was Passed in 1652. Here's Why It Was Ignored" BilCat (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, even according to the Brown source cited for the 1652 law, that 1652 law was never enforced, and Rhode Island had the highest percentage of enslaved persons in all New England by the time of the Revolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, for the record, the same problematic editing has come up before, see Talk:Thirteen Colonies/Archive 2 the first two sections. Where the 'legal in all 13' was previously shown with sources to be the case. (see also, diff) --Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it a bit odd that Dilidor has apparently, for at least five years, been pushing this narrative that slavery had been illegal in all of Rhode Island since 1652. That just didn't add up to me, given Rhode Island's prominent role in the slave trade. I did a G-search on "rhode island and slavery". and found the Time article in less than five minutes. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but it's important to check a broad range of sources. BilCat (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all they had to do is read fully the cite they gave (the Brown cite) and the multiple cites they have been given over the years, to know their claims were and are false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I want note that Dilidor has also been removing sourced information about slavery from several other New England articles over the past few months, as well. I found slavery-related removals at Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations diff1 diff2, History of Providence, Rhode Island diff3, New England diff4, Plymouth Colony diff5, and Roger Williams diff6. CoatGuy2 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery in all thirteen colonies 

message: Dilidor and I have disagreed on this point in the lead. He prefers saying the colonies were on the Atlantic coast of « America »;  I prefer « North America ». In my view, « America » is more of a political statement. Standard description of the continent as a geographic location is « North America » (in English, at least). Would welcome comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with using North America here. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  « America » or « North America » 

message: Critics have marked sections that depend too heavily on one book by Richter. I replaced with multiple cites to specialized books and articles. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse 

message: There is a typo in this sentence, where "shown" is spelled "dhown" "New Netherland with 17th-century Dutch claims in areas that later became English colonies dhown in red and yellow."
It is the image for Middle Colonies Pnc4k (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for reporting that. Vsmith (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024 

message: "A relatively high degree of self-governance" means the same as "A high degree of self-governance", i.e. you are getting zero value for those four syllables.  Or am I missing something?  Actually I wonder if the use of "relatively" here is actually just an attempt to hedge and/or express doubt, kind of like MOS:DOUBT.  In either case it doesn't belong. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree it doesn't add much. To better align with what's in both the Government section of the article and the linked article "a culture of self-governance" or "a well-established tradition of self-governance" would probably be more accurate. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Relatively adds the information that the concept is rooted in time, certainly not what a modern reader would understand as self-governance. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To get that meaning you'd need to say something like "compared to modern standards" somewhere in there. "Relatively" just indicates "in comparison to [something]", but just what it's being compared to is left open-ended the way it's currently stated. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.  Both the structural limit of the vote and the imperial power over the colony is mentioned in the lead, which only makes sense because the distance worked in favor of the degree of self-governance, yet most all, including the largest, were royal colonies so very much subject to the imperial intendency. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that adding "relatively" adds nothing and perhaps subtracts. And I agree it indicates a comparison but not compared to what. It is imprecise wording. "A culture of self-governance" or "a well-established tradition of self-governance" gets the point across. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  And I admit that "a high degree of self-governance" provides clarity. It's not saying the colonies or whatever entities were "self-governed." So yes, "relatively" only adds vagueness to that sentence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with "degree of self-governance"  --  "high" is a comparison, and it also rather overstates it. Also as the lead is trying to talk about many areas over a continent.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

text: @Alanscottwalker, in this comment, it sounds like you're seeing "relatively" as a limiter (as in "a somewhat high degree"). Is your concern that "high degree" alone sounds like a greater level of self-governance than is warranted? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see relatively as a contextual explainer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's pulling that off here successfully. I'd be fine with simply "a degree of self-governance" as an alternative. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatively