Talk:Thirteen Colonies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do:

Contents

[edit] Division of the colonies

Are the colonies separated into 3 parts: New England, __, and __? --Menchi 07:00, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Found it in a textbook: New E., Middle, and Southern. I'll add them to the article. --Menchi 07:02, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
It's an artificial classification, but it is somewhat helpful, so I'm fine with it. Just bear in mind there was no formal distinction, although there were various divisions that drove certain decisions: north vs. south, and large state (especially population) vs. small state, but the 3 part division is reasonably helpful and the most common division made for this period of the United States as far as I can recall. I think the other distinctions I just mentioned are better placed on a US Constitional History page. Daniel Quinlan 08:23, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
I classification I am fond of is the one used by D.W. Meinig in his books "The Shaping of America". He writes of "Greater New England" (including eastern Long Island), "Hudson Valley" (including East Jersey), "Greater Pennsylvania" (including West Jersey, Delaware, and parts of Maryland and Virginia (Piedmont and Great Wagon Road areas)), "Greater Virginia" (including Tidewater Maryland and parts of North Carolina), and "Greater South Carolina" (including Georgia and parts of North Carolina). I like this 5-way classification for colonial America.. each region is fairly self-contained, culturally distinct from each other, but similar in terms of population and power. Pfly 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific colony locations

What about linking directly to founding colonies, eg,

Maryland (eg, St. Marie's City)

Massachusetts (eg, Boston_Colony)

Would that be appropriate ?

Who were the men who found the 13 colonies? -- Anon

I wouldn't link directly, but I would perhaps provide links to articles about each colony history. The history of Massachusetts, for example, goes far beyond the founding colony. Daniel Quinlan 08:00, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Why delink colony names?

Any reason for delinking all but four of the colony names? jengod 00:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

The ones I delinked have been renamed to a single place which is already in wikipedia (and linked), so the most we'd have is a redundant redirect. Anthony DiPierro 00:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The history of New Jersey is already in the New Jersey article. Anthony DiPierro 14:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Moved article from 13 colonies to Thirteen Colonies because:

  1. style manuals seem to favor "13" being spelled out in this instance (see, for example, Chicago Manual of Style)
  2. "thirteen colonies" returns slightly more results than "13 colonies" on Google (31,500 vs. 31,000)
  3. "Colonies" should be capitalized because this is a formal historical term

--Lowellian 00:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Which section of Chicago are you referring to? What is this instance? 9.3 or 9.5? jengod 01:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of Chicago with me, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. Most manuals of style in the humanities and social sciences use one the spell-out-numbers-from-1-to-100 rule (though I grant that some other manuals use other, more complicated rules, such as the word-count rule wherein "twenty" is spelled out but "21" is not). There are numerous exceptions when those rules aren't applied and the number is spelled out, such as years, dollar amounts, percentages, page numbers, etc., but none of those exceptions apply in this case. --Lowellian 04:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heading

Why was the heading changed to "Et al."? I find that to be extremely confusing. What was wrong with the original heading of "Other British colonies in North America and the Caribbean in 1776"? --Lowellian 04:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Help request

I'm working on a page which explains the western land claims surrended by the original Thirteen Colonies in the early years of the American republic. As I've researched, it's become clear to me that there would be no better way to do this than to have a map. Is there anyone out there who knows how to do this, has software which is helpful, digs cartography or knows where I can find a public domain version of this material? I've found several examples on the web. My vomit draft of the page--did I mention it was a vomit draft?--is at User:Jengod/State_cessions. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[edit] Vermont?

I think Vermont was a disputed region between New York and New Hampshire... Why only list it as New York? --24.147.128.141 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Vermont was indeed claimed by both New York and New Hampshire. This should be noted on the list.

It may interest some people to know that Vermont (along with that section of New York north of the Mohawk river) almost became a 14th Colony. In 1775 delegation of local dignitaries from upstate New York and the New Hamphire Grants (lead by Phillip Skeen, a prominent land owner in the area) went to England seeking a Charter from George III to form a new Colony ... this was looked on with favor by the King and his ministers, and the delegation returned to America with some preliminary documentation ... only to discover that the Colonies were in revolt against the England and, thus, their documents were not concidered valid. This "aborted" Colony was to be called "Charlotte" and the Capital was to be at what is now Crown Point, New York.

[edit] Merge

As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary colonies, I took the text at Proprietary colonies and dumped it into this article. You'll probably need to copy-edit the new section vigorously. Let me stress that normal edit rules apply, so feel free to condense the text if you think that's necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, didn't anyone think to merge and redirect to the singular Proprietary colony? older≠wiser 16:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map of territory claimed by the colonies

The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map in the article, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the map request from here as it really belongs in state cessions - I'm currently working on it. Kmusser 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

could someone make a link to a page with the colonies in order of their founding and then in order that they ratified the constitution. 69.160.92.13 El_C 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term "Thirteen Colonies" Prior to the Revolution

Before the Revolution, were these 13 colonies regarded as in any way distinct from those colonies that remained loyal to the crown? Did the phrase "13 colonies" even exist before the Revolution? Or was it just an accident of history that these 13 chose to rebel while others, such as what are now the maritime provinces of Canada, remained loyal? TharkunColl 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I sent this question to the Library of Congress and the answer I got back was that the phrase "13 colonies" was not in usage before the war. Although there were differences between the 13 and the others, it was a matter of perpective and not fact. I can post the reply here, but it is fairly long.Gary Joseph 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do. You could make it an archive subpage or something.--Cúchullain t/c 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering the point above, isn't the title an anachronism? Isn't it poor form to use anachronistic language to define an article? Scoterican 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I've suggested a merge from Colonial America to here. That article is entirely about the history of the 13 colonies (or at least of the land that became the 13 colonies anyway). This one is short, and I don't see anything that isn't covered over there (except, ironically, about things outside the 13). I think Thirteen Colonies is the best title for the merged content. Colonial America could be rewritten as a summary of the colonial history of the rest of the US, or as a disambiguation page (I'd prefer the former). Does anyone have any thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that.Kmusser 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not mind a merge, but I strongly oppose naming the resulting article "Thirteen Colonies". There just happened to be thirteen colonies at the time of the American Revolution, so it would seem to limit the article to the time that they all existed rather than the complete history of American colonization. Also, it seems awkward and imprecise to me. If there is a problem with America = United States, then I would suggest a name like "Colonization of the United States" or something similar rather than "Thirteen Colonies". -- Kjkolb 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There was never thirteen colonies, there was twelve original colonies and post revolutionary times, Delaware became a seperate state but for no intensive purposes was it ever a colony. For some odd reason it was always grouped as 13 colonies possibly because 13 states were formed but there was actually only 12 colonies.

Oppose Lets not merge the articles the 13 colonies are signficant both as the foundational colonies of the United States, and by the absence of the other 6 colonies. Colonial America (as distinct from Colonial Canada?) may be only concerned with the 13 (or twelve), but we need to parse them out somewhere, with the 13 being to 'proto-america' and the other 6 loyalist. Bo 03:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? As they are currently written, both articles now deal with "proto-America". We don't need two.--Cúchullain t/c 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Colonial America has as it start, in the lead paragraph, "Colonial America refers to the area now known as the eastern United States and parts of Canada ", perhaps it needs 'fleshing out', but it does not need to be merged with this article. The 13 have nothing to do with Canada. Bo 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - "Colonial America" should be used for the time period of British colonialization upto the Revolution. "13 Colonies" should show the history of discontent, and the breaking away, and ultimatly the formation of the US. Joe I 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, Colonial America as it's currently written only deals with the 13 Colonies. Your suggestion would require a rewrite (which I'm okay with, but someone needs to do it). We don't need two articles on the same subject.--Cúchullain t/c 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Colonia America deals with the colonies in america, including Canada, it does not deal only with the 13. It needs more information on the other colonies, so that the article fullfills the promise of the lead paragraph, it does not need to merged. Bo 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is, right now, both articles deal with the same subject, and we don't need both. It does mention Canada in the lead, but there isn't any information about it in the article.--Cúchullain t/c 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want an article dealing with both the US and Canada, you could suggest British North America be fleshed out. What we are dealing with is two separate articles that both focus on the 13 colonies of the "proto-US". We need to merge the content into one page; then we can do whatever we want with the actual page with the name "Colonial America".--Cúchullain t/c 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
British North America is a links page, Colonial America is at least a start on an actual overview of the Colonies in America before the split. I think the addition of relavent information about the Floridas, Quebec, Nova Scotia, etc in Colonial America would be a better way to improve the wiki. I'll get busy on adding stuff about the Floridas to the Colonial America, to enhance the article, and increase the separation. Bo 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That would probably be the best thing.--Cúchullain t/c 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Bo. I'd go further to say that I think that this article should be maintained as a links page to direct to the histories of the "13" colonies. All the other information that was/is here is both more accurately and more fully dealt with elsewhere. Scoterican 21:18 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Thirteen colonies " was not a common term for the are which became the United States. Does it apear on any documents? After 1776 they were klnown as the "United States." Inkpaduta 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delaware was not a colony, just a state.

Delaware was nothing ever but a boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania--one time part of a deed to the Duke of York, but never its own geographic entity until becoming a state. There is no reason to deny its position as the first of the 13th states, but all the more reason to keep it out of the colonial category. There were only 12 colonies rebelling, with estranged Delaware's exit from Pennsylvania beginning a trend that emancipated Vermont/Kentucky/Maine etc from parent polities (New York, Virginia, Massachusetts etc). Let's not get hazy on this, but more exacting and forthright. Hasbro 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, it would be awesome if we could build out a section on this page diagramming not just the regional divisions of the colonies but the legal-governmental distinctions. In addition to the distinction mentioned above, which I more or less agree without although I'm shaky on the exact details, didn't we all learn in school about crown vs. chartered vs. the other kind (*g*) of colonies? jengod 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your idea, but before someone puts up a section on governmental distinctions, they should see if it would be better to include it in Colonial America or here.
Also, someone who understands the political history of the piece of land that became Delaware should probably move Delaware out of the list of colonies and into the section on "Other Divisions", if it would make the page more accurate. Scoterican 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Copied from my talkpage Septentrionalis 05:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial Cores

Historian Jack P. Greene identified six core regions of the British colonies: New England, the Middle Atlantic, The Chesapeake Colonies, the Lower Southern Colonies, the Atlantic Island Colonies, and the West Indies. Virtually every colonial historian agrees with him that the tobacco colonies of Virginia and Maryland represent a different region that the rice colonies of the Carolinas and Georgia. For a good discussion on the difference, please see Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Low Country by Philip D. Morgan (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1998). Given that this is the position taken by the vast majority of colonial historians, don't you think we should stop combining Maryland and Virginia with the Southern Colonies? Thanks.

A newbie has just blessed me with this message and the next. Is this a serious statement of the scholarship, or is this another crank devoted to whatever book he just happened to read? and do the books by these redlinks have any merit?
For my part, I dunno. I do get rather tired of being told that some flaky theory is the consensus of scholarship; and this one seems even more useless than usual. For one thing, it clearly doesn't apply to any point before the Restoration, and doesn't apply particularly well before the Glorious Revolution. New England, Middle and South are nice, even, well-established divisions; this fad may go away again in another decade. But I'm willing to put it up for discussion. Septentrionalis 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't have a clue on the contemporary consensus, but the consensus will change when the next batch of professors who need to make a name for themselves write their 'new' theories. The division on the page works just fine. Scoterican 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of British Colonies

Not that it matters, but there were actually 31 British colonies at the time.

Clearly a matter of definition. I only put 25 back in an effort to compromise the pointless number war, which was in part produced by unclarity; if this continues, I suggest we put back 13 and stick to it.</grump> Septentrionalis 05:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Not that it matters" - that is probably the key to the problem! :) We need to edit the page so we don't need the specific number, since it is not important to this page. Scoterican 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I used the numbers from the British North America article (at the time of the rebellion), and I'd think that the 13 being only a fraction of the British North American Colonies at the time they declared themselves independent would matter. And to it follows that as it matters that they were only a fraction, then the size of the denominator matters too. Bo 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MD/VA

MY Opinion:

   I clearly believe that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!

Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. I'm from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutely HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconsiderate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.

Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.

   If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????

It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty useful to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORCED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are naturally South.

Subject 3: MD.

   Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.

I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!

Final Subject: Overall.

   Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!

They have many southern charms too. In fact, we have great hospitality too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that Maryland and Virginia are at least a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if you've been too Maryland and Virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!

P.S. don't post nasty negative comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz


P.S. no 2. IF you ask a man at a gas station in Southern, MD.... you'll know that chu in the south. - Footballchik

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryland"

like omg i love the thirteen colonies and to learn about them

The question is not if they are Southern States now, nor is it if they were at one time during their history, but rather it is if they were in the time period in question. This means you have to limit yourself to the period before the US was formed. So, while you have every right to feel strongly about how they should be classified today, and how they should be classified during the period of the Civil war, your reasoning does not apply to the historic classification of either MD or VA in this Wiki entry. Scoterican 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] There were 20 Colonies in British America until April 19, 1775

Please review the map below,

The British Colonies in North America 1763-1775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG


Count 'em. There are 20 Colonies in British America (19 Settler Colonies and the Hudson's Bay Land (i.e., 19+1=20)). Now, if considers the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians there were 21 (i.e., 20+1=21)). Let us review,

British America consisted of 21 parts,

(i). 19 Settler Colonies,

(ii). the Hudson's Bay Land,

(iii). the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians.


To further clarify the British Colonies in North America 1763-1775 were in practice refered to as the two separate British Colonial Regions of British America (i.e., the mainland and Newfoundland), and the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).

Next, the "19 Colonies" of British America under went a schism after April 19, 1775 and divided themselves into two opposing camps, the "13 Colonies" in Rebellion of British America, and the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG

Addendum: List of the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.

Colony of Newfoundland (founded 1583),

Colony of Nova Scotia (founded 1625),

Colony of Quebec (founded 1763),

Colony of Prince Edward Island (founded 1770),

Colony of East Florida (founded 1763),

Colony of West Florida (founded 1763).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure what your point is. Does the article claim that the thirteen colonies were the only British colonies in North America? No. The article at present, states in the introduction The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies in North America founded between 1607 (Virginia), and 1732 (Georgia). Although Britain held a dozen additional colonies in North America and the West Indies, the colonies referred to as the "thirteen" are those that rebelled against British rule in 1775. (Seven other British colonies did not join the rebellion.) The article British North America contains the complete list you are looking for. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bkonrad. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them alot. As per the title of this Wikipedia article, The Thirteen Colonies, I am not disputing its appropriateness. I believe it is a very good article. Indeed.

What I am attempting to do is to CLARIFY the FACT that between 1763-1775 there were 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland). These were divided into THREE DISTINCT COLONIAL SUBARCHTYPES,

(i). Settler Colonies ("the 19 Colonies"), i.e., 19 Units,

(ii). Commerical Colonies (the Hudson's Bay Land), i.e., 1 Unit,

(iii). Crown Lands (the Crown Land Reserved for the Indians) i.e., 1 Unit.

Thus, giving us 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland).

The salient point is that in (i). the "13 Colonies" of the 19 Colonies seceeded from British America, and definitely not from the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).

Summary:

The term known as British Colonies in North America is NOT the same thing as term known as British North America. Why? You see the correct historical usage of British North America consists ot the time period 1783-1867 (i.e., AFTER the War of Independence (1775-1783)). The term known as British America is correctly applied to the time period 1607-1775.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The "Thirteen colonies" is a term coined by a Wikipedia editor, and was not the term under which the United States fought the revolution, nor was it a term used by the British or others to describe them, so it is not appropriate as a title for this article. Likewise they did not fight as the "United Colonies." From the Declaration of independence through the present they have been the "United States." Inkpaduta 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction: from May 1775 to July 1776 the Continental Congress fought as the "United Colonies." (and issued paper money in that name. Look closely at the top line of the money it issued:
$2 paper money issued in name of United Colonies, 1775; these bills were called "continentals"
$2 paper money issued in name of United Colonies, 1775; these bills were called "continentals"

Rjensen 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Actually the long form name was the United Colonies of North America. Additionally, the short form name was the United Colonies.

For a short while the "Continental Army" used the term the United Provinces of North America.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could we get semi-protection for this page?

Ahem, could we get semi-protection for this page? So that only REGISTERED Wikipedians will be allowed to edit the Thirteen Colonies page. There has been alot of petty vandalism lately.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First New Nation?

Rjensen claims that this is sidely used among political scientists; that may have been true forty years when Lipset wrote, but the conceit seems to have gone out again. In any case, it is off-topic here, in this extended dab page, which ends with the Revolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, very off topic. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Please note that the Declaration of Independence declares a "united States of America", not a "United States of America". samwaltz 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the archaic form is really appropriate here. It may just be confusing; at any rate I don't think it's really all that important. I won't revert it, though; I'd like to see what others have to say. HiramShadraski 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
it was a printer error and is not on the official copy Rjensen 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT a printer error.

The final agreement on the long form name of the new country was decided on the Articles of Confederation, specifically,

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

In legal terminology, Style and Title explicitly mean long form name.

Consider the following evolution of the name,

British America,

United Colonies of New England,

Dominion of New England,

British Colonies in North America,

United Colonies of North America,

United Provinces of North America,

United Colonies of British America,

States of America,

United States of America.

(and briefly, the Confederate States of America),

Note: Dominion of North America is implied if the Galloway Plan of Union was followed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway's_Plan_of_Union

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"States of America" ?? nope--not in any reference book. Rjensen 08:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Rjensen, this is a minor point, but I can argue it (I believe sucessfully btw), the States of America,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_declaration_independence.jpg

was the temporary long form name of the new country on July 4, 1776. It is probably the best comprimise that the Founder Father's had come up with at that time.

States of America

Pretty clear eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


So the name was either "the united States of America" or "States of America" until the Articles of Confederation were (yes, were) written. This means we should change the line "proclaimed their independence as the United States of America on July 4, 1776" to simply "proclaimed their independence on July 4, 1776", as "united" was not officially capitalised until Article I "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America"." was adopted on 15 November, 1777. samwaltz 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The States of America was probably all the Founding Father's could agree by July 4, 1776. Ultimately the long form name of the United States of America was settled on, via the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Since the Government of the United States of America won the War of Independence 1775-1783 they won the right to retro-actively chose their date of independence for the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They chose July 4, 1776. They could of chosen April 19, 1775; July 5, 1775; July 4, 1776; September 30, 1783; anything they wanted. They won eh.


Bibliography

(1). Anthony Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North-America and the West Indies at the Time the Civil War Broke Out on the Continent of America in which Notice is Taken of such Alterations as have Happened since that Time, down to the Present Period with a Variety of Colony Precients, which are Chiefly Adapted to the British West Indian Islands; and may be Useful to those, who have Intercourse with the Colonies, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Union, New Jersey, USA, pp. 556, (reprint of 1783 version), (2002).

(2). Charles L. Mowat, East Florida as a British Province, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp. 237, (Facsmilie reprint of 1943 version), (1964).

(3). Cecil Johnson, British West Florida 1763-1783, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 257, (1943).

(4). J. Baton Starr, Tories Dons and Rebels The American Revolution in British West Florida, The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp.278, (1976).

(5). Lawrence H. Feldman, The Last Days of British Saint Augustine 1784-1785 A Spanish Census of the English Colony of East Florida, Clearfield Company Inc., by the Geneological Company Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 116,(2003).

(6). William R. Shepard, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, (This edition contains all maps of the Seventh Revised and Enlarged and a special suppliment of historical maps for period since 1929 prepared by C.S. Hammond and Company), The Colonial Offset Co., Inc., Pikesville, Maryland, USA, pp. 115, (1956).

(7). Frederick D. Stone, Plans for the Union of the British Colonies of North America 1643-1776, pp.439-503, (1889).

(8). Handlist of Proclamations Issued by Royal and Other Constitutional Authorities 1714-1910, Burt Franklin, New York, New York, USA, pp. 918, (1967).

(9). Daniel Coxe, A Description of the English Province of Carolana, By the Spanards Call'd Florida, and By the French La Louisiane, The University Presses of Florida, Gaineville, Florida, USA, pp. 140, (Facsimile reproduction of the 1722 edition), (1976).

(10). James B. Scott, Autonomy and Federation within Empire the British Self-Governing Dominions, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, USA, pp.352, (1921).

(11). Hugh E. Egerton, Federation and Unions within the British Empire, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, London, England, UK, pp.306, (1924).

(12). Viola F. Barnes, The Dominion of New England A Study in British Colonial Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 303, (1960).

(13). James P. Taylor, The Cardinal Facts of Canadian History Carefully Gathered from the Most Trustworthy Sources, The Hunter Rose Co., Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 228, (1899).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] united States of America? no--Congress said capital-U United States of America?

Congress decided the issue on July 19, 1776: Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress. The lower case "u" on the engrossed copy was a printer error and was not authorized by Congress: it used the upper case. Source = Journals at [5] Rjensen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, please provide a bone-fide reference to this being a "printer error". Frankly, your story sounds preposterous.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the engrossed document: small letter "u". Take a look at the official journal [6] which specifies capital "U". What's preosterous? Rjensen 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me a bone-fide reference that explicitly states that it is a printer error.

Old Copy

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/DECLARATION/us_declarationE.jpg

Later Reprint

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/23dunlap.jpg


ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for a reference. But what else can one call it when the engrosser's version differs slightly from what was ordered by Congress? Note that capitalization was quite erratic in those days. The Journals on July 4 clearly specify the capital U in "United", see [7] However notice the mixed capital and lower case letters in the opening: That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [8] Perhaps they upper-cased most (but not all) nouns and the engrosser though "united" was an adjective and did not notice that Congress had ordered it upper cased? Rjensen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, both Jefferson's handwritten draft[9] and the printing made on the night of July 4 have "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all upper case). It's the engrossed copy made by Matlack several weeks later that has the lower case "united". [10] The Congress officially stated "United" on both July 4 and July 19. Rjensen 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look it, I firmly believe that the long form name of the country was the United States of America. Next upon inspection of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson,

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc49.jpg

one sees that is says,

"A Declaration of Independence by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled"

However, where is the THIRTEEN part (that appeared in the final draft)?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] States of America or United States of America Engrossment Question

Engrossment is the craft of transcribing Offical Documents in large text (usually Caligraphy).

Image:DeclarationHeader 128x640.jpg

Engrossed Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

http://www.calligraphersguild.org/penmen.html


The engrosser stock-and-trade is getting things right. So why was the word United in the long form name the United States of America not engrossed to the same size as the rest of the name, i.e., it looks like the States of America was all the Founding Father's could agree on by July 4, 1776.

Anyone have any bone-fide references to shed some light on this question?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the engrosser involved Timothy Matlack was not a professional calligrapher -- he was a staffer who had the best handwriting and was assigned the job. His product does NOT match the resolutions passed by Congress in terms of one lower case letter "u", so he made a little mistake. One assumes he was human and there was a war going on, after all. Rjensen 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A little mistake? No. He must of been told to make it that way.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A reference was asked for: Pauline Maier American Scripture p 235 says "human error crept into the various transcriptions". Rjensen 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Various transcriptions? Does she explicitly indicate this first one by Timothy Matlack?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/i/Talk%7EThirteen_Colonies_e463.html"