Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 24

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mercenaries v Auxiliaries

In the markup for the info-box there's a hidden note that reads: Consensus agrees mercenaries is unnecessary; see Talk. Can someone point to where this consensus was established? When I checked Talk archives I found a discussion where there was overwhelming consensus fort using the term Mercenaries, listed below:

Support / Oppose using Mercenaries:

Support: - user:Rjensen
Support: - user:The Four Deuces
Support: - user: Seraphim System
Support: - user:Dbrote
Support: - user:Rwenonah
Support: - user:Peacemaker67
Support: - user:Alcherin
Support: - user: Anaruna
Neutral: - user:Eastfarthingan
Oppose: - user:XavierGreen

That discussion can be found here. — I'm just curious – at what point did the consensus get completely turned around?

If there are names that are missing here, feel free to link to the discussion where they can be found.

The superficial distinction that mercenaries are individuals, rather than members of a state doesn't carry far when that state is the one who is hiring them out for money in a foreign war they have no particular interest in. In the Hessian (soldier) article, (which was (moved from Hessian Mercenaries by Lord Cornwallis) it clearly says:
In most of these wars, Hesse-Kassel never became a belligerent by declaring war on any other country. The troops were rented for service in other armies, and Hesse-Kassel itself had no stake in the outcome of the war. Thus, it was possible for Hessians to serve with both the British and Bavarian armies in the War of the Austrian Succession, even though Britain and Bavaria were on opposite sides of the war. Historian Charles Ingrao says that the local prince had turned Hesse into a "mercenary state" by renting out his regiments to fund his government.<Charles W. Ingrao, The Hessian mercenary state>" Yes, the term mercenary can be a "derogatory" term, and all things considered, this should be nothing amazing. They had a reputation for being cruel and ruthless to civilians and often stole from the British, who by no means held them in high regard. We should not be misleading the readers with the sugar-coated and ambiguous term Auxiliary. The soldiers in question were hired to fight in a foreign war. Other considerations (e.g. 'they were paid the same as British regular's -- 'they were not acting as individuals but members of a state') are all academic and besides the major point. If there is a real and reasoned consensus to use the term Auxiliary then fine. If not, and it seems not, we should address this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not looking at the most recent in depth discussion on the issue, see here [[1]]. The term mercenary is not accurate, and creates clear NPOV issues. Hesse-Kassel signed a Treaty of Alliance with the United Kingdom in 1776, it was not possible for Hesse-Kassel to supply troops to any power opposing the UK during the Revolutionary War because they were treaty bound to defend each other as allies.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus established there, just a few editors discussing the subject. Further, except for Rjensen, whose points you ignore, none of the names outlined above appear in that discussion.

From the Declaration of Independence:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. — T. Jefferson.

Hessians were ultimately paid to fight in a foreign war they had no interest in. All other items are incidental and academic and pale by comparison. This is the second time, that I know of, where you have claimed being supported by a consensus where there was none. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in the discussion i linked was to not use either term "Mercenary" or "Auxiliaries". If you look back through the edit history, after that point the polities in question were listed in a collapsible box without out either moniker. If you look, I was not part of that discussion nor did I make any changes to change the new status quo after the discussion. Other editors did that. Your personal attacks against me will get you no where.XavierGreen (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Hesse-Cassel and Brunswick got more out of participating in the war than just cash. They got full blown defensive treaties of alliance with the UK in exchange for their participation in the war. See here, [[2]]. If any third party attacked Hesse-Kassel, the United Kingdom was obligated under the treaty to provide military assistance. Hesse-Hanau offered its troops to Great Britain unconditionally out of familial loyalty to Britain's king. While money was a motivating factor, and for most of the princes the primary factor for several states there were other important factors that contributed to their participation in the war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Noting that you have no consensus where you claim you have is not a personal attack -- it's an observation. That discussion to which you refer amounts to nothing in terms of the consensus that was established here, and where you made repeated reversions ( 1, 2, 3 ) in the face of all those editors. And I'm not really impressed with your other notes. i.e."They got more than cash". The bottom line has not changed. Hesse was a mercenary state that rented out soldiers for hire (or other benefits) in foreign wars they had no interest in. They even rented out to countries who were at war with each other, where Hessian mercenaries fought against other Hessian mercenaries. Referring to these unprincipled thugs, many of whom where impressed into the Hessian army to meet quotas, as 'Mercenaries' is actually too good for them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Webster

Merriam-Webster dictionary: Mercenary:
1. one that serves merely for wages especially: a soldier hired into foreign service
2. serving merely for pay or sordid advantage (emphasis mine)
3. hired for service in the army of a foreign country

All other considerations are academic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Except that the soldiers did not serve "merely for wages", Hesse-Kassel's army was made up entirely of conscripts. See here [[3]]. The soldiers in the Hessian army did not fight for wages, they fought because they were forced to by their government. It was their government that hired out their entire army, not the individual soldiers doing so of their own accord. That is the difference.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic. They were still hired soldiers fighting in a war they had no interest in and were considered as mercenaries from the mercenary state of Hesse-Cassell by the King of Prussia and much of Germany, and were understandably considered as such by the Americans, including Thomas Jefferson, not to mention the dozens of sources in our Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"More than any other act of the British government, the hiring of mercenaries opened the eyes of Americans to their own peril and to the impossibility of reconciliation." ^[1]

Below is a List of Reliable sources, almost all used in this article, that use the terms Mercenaries or Mercenary in reference to the Hessians or Germans in the ARW:

In the Infobox from an editorial standpoint, the more neutral term "Auxiliary" better serves the online Encyclopedia with international readers. It is more apt in context to describe the feudal peasants who were conscripted away from their family tenancy farms. - - - In topic sections of the article, it's important to report the Patriot characterization of George III's use of foreign troops for suppression in a British-subject rebellion. American newspapers were read in London coffeehouses. The Crown could not recruit sufficient numbers to war against American cousins in the general population from the get-go.

- We have the previously Talk-cited anecdote from a Germanic princess diary. She described the regiments to be sent to America assembled on parade. Three country boys who had openly questioned "Why, America" to their sergeants were solemnly marched to the center of the horseshoe formation and shot down by a firing squad. All the soldiery assembled shouted, "For America! For America! For America!" The cry echoed through the square to the great apparent satisfaction of the prince.

- Thirty percent of the German soldiers in America deserted to become US citizens. Thousands more returned to their homeland, collected their families, and immigrated to take up homesteads on the American frontier. In Virginia, the men joined militias, and some were named among western militia officers commissioned by the General Assembly. The same was true in other states expanding west in the 1790s.

- Whigs in Commons and Lords championed the American cause as (a) fellow-Englishmen with Englishmen's rights, and (b)important realms of the kingdom, on a constitutional par with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Indeed, the independent MPs of "Country Gentlemen" will not fill the ranks of regular regiments and local defense militias until AFTER the Bourbon preparations to invade English shores are made known in London weeklies. (It was fatally flawed, the initial Irish harbor chosen might have succeeded to ensure a winter's resupply: French and Spanish ships suffered more damage in North Sea gales "in a day" than a British warship sustained over "an entire season"; see Mahan 1898). Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

While I supported the term mercenary, I am now undecided. There is a discussion of the description in the article Hessian (soldier) if anyone is interested. It seems that the term was used to disparage the British in the war, without regard to precision. The U.S. in recent years has used soldiers provided by countries that receive military aid, but do not call them mercenaries. But then Cuban forces in Angola were called mercenaries in some sources. TFD (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The term Mercenaries is basic, as outlined, the likes of which are not contingent on the idea that anyone may be offended, which is understandable, given the capacity of their sordid involvements. All things considered, e.g. Hessian mercenaries fighting against other Hessian mercenaries in some cases, that term is definitive, used by many (most? I'm still checking) of the sources used in this article. That is the common term the readers will recognize, and given the glaring circumstances, along with our sources that use the term here, should be employed here in this article. The sugar-coated and ambiguous term Auxiliaries is highly misleading with no hint that these were hired soldiers fighting in a foreign war they had no heart felt interest in, unlike the British and the Americans. No one can blame, at least not me, that the British hired a pack of ravenous wolves, notorious for their cruelty, to do their dirty work, but let's not consider them as puppy-dogs just to save face in the historical realm. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am undecided on this too, Auxiliary does sound better term but the Hessians etc match the description of 'mercenaries' in terms of it meaning. Yet Hessians etc had their own colours and standards. The exception is Hanover which was part of the British crown but didn't fight on US soil - they did however fight at Gibraltar and in India. We can look at similar aspects in different wars - there is an article I composed English expedition to Portugal (1662–1668) where the situation is similar. England technically wasn't at war with Spain but wasn't exactly at peace either. Yet very few sources I have across call them mercenaries whereas most call them 'Auxiliaries'. Another example is the Portuguese army in the Peninsular war which was fully paid for by Britain as well as supplied and armed. They were also trained by Portuguese speaking British officers. The they were definitely not mercenaries however as the big difference there was that Portugal was at war with France. It's difficult to decide. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually it shouldn't be difficult to decide if you don't loose sight of the basic premise that defines these "soldiers" as mercenaries. i.e. Soldiers for hire - in a foreign war they have no interest in. All else is secondary and could keep us deliberating endlessly as we saw here. The sources in our Bibliography overwhelmingly refer to the Hessians as mercenaries. Here are more sources, taken from our Bibliography, that all refer to the Hessians, or Germans, fighting in the ARW as mercenaries.

Sources

Sources taken from the Bibliography (unless noted) that refer to Hessian or German soldiers as mercenaries.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

1775, 1782: 'Mercenaries' then 'Auxiliaries' for Hessians-etc

See The Hessians, Cambridge University Press (2002). It says that there was a legal distinction between auxiliaries and mercenaries, although the term mercenary is more commonly used. (p.1) The distinction is further explained on pp. 22-23, referencing experts including Vattel. So our choice is between using a common term that is inaccurate and pejorative or one that is accurate but uncommon. Whatever we decide we should mention that both terms are used. Your description of the Hessians as unprincipled thugs isn't exactly pc and they were probably little worse than British and American soldiers. TFD (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The distinction between auxiliaries and mercenaries is one that goes back centuries. Machiavelli in the Prince notes the differences for example [4]. Under modern international law, an auxiliary is a lawful combatant as a member of a national military and is thus subject to POW protections. A mercenary is not a lawful combatant and if tried and found to be a mercenary may be executed under international law. I agree with TFD's suggestion. The german principalities should be listed merely under a collapsable list called "German Principalities" with a notation linking to the explaination of their participation in the article. The article should state the facts, that they were technically considered Auxiliary troops, but that the Americans referred to them as mercenaries.XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There can be any number of things that can distinguish mercenaries amongst themselves, but they still come under the general heading of mercenaries for two basic reasons. i.e.They were hired for pay or other benefits, and to fight in a foreign war they had no particular interest in. None of the other considerations cancel out these basic characteristics. All other considerations are secondary and often academic. And there's nothing that says an auxiliary can't be a mercenary. We should go with the term that the sources use in our Bibliography, which overwhelmingly use the common term mercenaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Except that the soldiers themselves were not hired at all, they were forcibly conscripted into their own national military. See here [5]. Hesse-Kassel's army was made up almost entirely of conscripts. The soldiers themselves did not fight for money, they fought because they were forced to by their own national government. This was part of the reason why they deserted in droves, because they were poorly paid conscripts. Hence by your own definition they are not mercenaries. By your statements here, drafted American soldiers in Vietnam would be "mercenaries" because they were paid wages and fought in a war they had no particular interest in.XavierGreen (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your secondary notes have been already addressed. The soldiers benefited, one way or the other, in a foreign war. The term mercenary has been used throughout history around the world -- the Americans didn't invent it. The article 'is' stating the facts as presented by dozens of sources which we all use in the bibliography. There can be any number of things that can distinguish mercenaries amongst themselves, but they still come under the general heading of mercenaries for two basic reasons. i.e.They were hired for pay or other benefits, and to fight in a foreign war they had no particular interest in. None of the other considerations cancel out these basic characteristics. All other considerations are secondary and often academic. And there's nothing that says an auxiliary can't be a mercenary. We should go with the term that the sources use in our Bibliography, which overwhelmingly use the common term mercenaries. All these sources cannot be ignored, and neither can the consensus which you've already attempted to skirt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That consensus you referenced is long dead. Your assertion that auxiliaries are mercenaries is not supported by the sources on the subject, see Machiavelli's the Prince i linked above. Also, the Hessian soldiers did not fight for money, they were conscripts forced to fight by their national government see here [6]. You have not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise.XavierGreen (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As was pointed out, legal experts including Vattel distinguished between mercenaries and auxiliaries. Why should we use a popular but incorrect term instead of an uncommon but precise one? You said we should do that in order to denigrate the Hessian soldiers. TFD (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to two items: 1. The soldiers benefited, one way or the other … 2. They were hired for pay or other benefits. FIRST, ‘benefited’ means good results, promotes wellbeing, advantage. Aside from faithfully relating deprecating terms from Patriot propaganda, no RS cited to date establishes the benefit from American service among coerced peasants from the German principalities of the Holy Roman Empire in the ARW.

SECOND, the term ‘mercenary’ means one who has hired themselves out, i.e. ‘hired’ means to grant personal services or temporary use of, for a fixed sum. Personal services were NOT volunteered by the conscripts, they were for the duration, NOT temporary, and a fixed sum was NOT mutually agreed upon prior to their service. The peasantry were NOT hired, they were coerced, they did NOT serve at will, and they did NOT negotiate their fixed wages. The RS note it was the heads-of-state who were mercenaries of their feudal serfs, rather than imaginary liberated serfs entering into temporary wage contracts as 'mercenaries'.

- Were the peasants serving in America the supposedly despicable examples of humanity that the most virulent FIRST-year of desperate Patriot propaganda claimed, with the triumphant American victory at Yorktown, the Continental Army in their successful LAST-year would not have offered a surrounded and unsupplied adversary, for each and every HESSIAN DESTERTING: A full pardon and protection, plus 200 acres of land, a cow and two breeding swine….

Over the course of 18th century European military history, that was not the conventional accommodation made to surrounded and defeated war-criminal garrisons serving in regiments guilty of civilian atrocities, ... well, imho. So, further research with sources, links and direct quotes to follow.

PERHAPS A CONSENSUS HERE: Part 1. 'Auxiliary' in the Infobox, Part 2. faithful relating Patriot characterizations AND their changes from 1775 to 1782, and into the 1790s, during the ARW-veteran German-family mass-migration and state citizenship granted BEFORE they were qualified for US citizenship (see Virginia, et alia). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

XG', you once referred to a dated consensus (which you could never link to btw) when you came crashing back onto the page in early June making massing reverts, deleting weeks of work in the Bibliography and elsewhere, so please don't carry on as if we can't remember past last week. Consensus stands until it is challenged and a new one takes its place. That has not occurred. Britain paid for the Hessians to fight in a foreign war. Whether the money went directly into their pockets or if they were forced is secondary, as is any legal distinction made by a lawyer who died before the ARW. They were hired soldiers. Also, mercenaries often work under a greater authority, be it a business or state sponsored. Each one of them doesn't have to be sort of a 'Long Ranger' to qualify as a mercenary. Again, these are all secondary considerations. We have dozens of scholarly sources in our Bibliography that refer to the Hessians, or Germans, as mercenaries. I'm inclined to go with the majority of scholarship rather than with some exceptional conjecture that attempts to explain any distinction which, again, doesn't cancel out the the major considerations. i.e.Hessians were hired to fight in a foreign war they had no interest in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus you claim still stands plainly died the next year in the subsequent discussion I linked to where it was proposed without challenge that the article be changed to not favor either term (a conversation which I noted above that I was not involved in). The article stayed in a form that was conformed with that principle by merely stating "German Principalities" in the infovbox for quite some time until it was changed relatively recently (again not by me). In fact, it was a rather good solution because it lead to the the end of a long series of edit wars and discussions that had been ongoing over several years, so its plain there was a consensus formed contrary to what your asserting. In regards to the "payment issue", Britain paid its own soldiers to fight in the war too. Most rank and file British soldiers in the 18th and early 19th century joined the army for financial reasons, they got free food and steady pay. So if one takes your own synthesis to be the standard, the British would be considered mercenaries too.XavierGreen (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a 1978 article in the JAG Journal, "Mercenaries and Freedom Fighters," which discusses the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. has not ratified. Article 47 of the protocol says a mercenary is someone who "has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces." The article continues, "Previously, there has been no commonly accepted juridicial definition of mercenary." It then provides the definition given by Vattel, who died before the ARW. What legal texts are you using? TFD (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, RS use the term 'mercenaries' as a descriptor of foreign troops in the ARW. The editor discussion point: dozens of scholarly sources refer to the Hessians, or Germans, as mercenaries can be admitted without automatically accepting that terminology as the editorial voice for the Infobox, before we inspect the terminology and usage more closely. Surely “mercenary” meets the wp:neutral point of view test of WP:VERIFIABILITY in the mutually agreed-upon RS. But that element should be balanced with WP:IMPARTIAL, “The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.”

- In a related way, at WP:POVNAMING, we see Boston Massacre can be adopted as an article title, even though the title “appears to pass [adverse] judgment”. BUT a little bit further it notes, “Some articles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive [terms] should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic. …Neutral [terms] encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.” It may be that in the Infobox, “Auxiliaries” alone may be ‘ambiguous’ as stated. It can be clarified in the article section unpacking the participants in a given battle; they are not belligerents-at-war, they are battle-combatants.

Rather an editorial voice conceiving all foreign soldiery as ”ravenous wolves, notorious for their cruelty, to do dirty work” from the get-go, in the narrative text, we can allow for both (a) characterizations from Patriot weeklies and broadsides, and also include (b) the foreign soldier diary entries and letters home, complaining from both officers and men, condemning the unconventional and unprecedented cruelty required by direct orders from superior British officers in the field. This was not 18th century Euro army "maneuver, maneuver, parlay tent, cede a province". After the Carlisle Peace Commission the British treated the American rebels as they had the Scots of the Jacobite rising of 1745.

- The article narrative should account for the evolution of terms applied to the foreign troops as used among the independence Congress and Continental Army dispatches. As noted before, they are pictured as (a) frightful predator-invaders, to (b) worthy men to be granted 200 acres, a cow and two swine from Congress (much less than Continental veteran land grants, but a working family farm nevertheless) to (c) desirable men-and-their-families actively recruited to settle here with states conferring voting-citizenship by Acts of Assembly before the two-year eligibility requirement for US citizenship.

Article editorial voice should not adopt one-sided terminology, that of a consensus-chosen (our, victorious) side, as though the dead hand of the Patriot past dictates a Napoleonic-like “winners write history” approach. I’m not sure that take is consistent with the Scottish-American Enlightenment of our common intellectual history on either side of the Pond, imo. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

More pointedly, instead of denigrating foreign troops, let's account for the end of British reconciliation policy and the unfettered administration of deliberate "coercion" by Lord North's cabinet, Lord Germain on land and Lord Sandwich with his prison ships murdering more than ARW combat at 11,000. After the Carlisle Peace Commission, the British treated the American rebels as the "Scots of '45" in the Jacobite rising of 1745.

British policy called for punitively torching rebel-associated villages and their surrounding farms and murdering civilians. "The army could conquer, regulate, and reform colonies on the edge of civilization ... the rules [could be suspended] governing the use of force against different categories of inhabitants and strangers, savages and subjects." The British coercion policy for America had everything but the property confiscation, disinheriting rebel families, church persecution, and beheading. OH, wait a minute ... that's all before the foreigners, without the foreigners, and over the occasional foreign officer protest. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

TVH – You've touched on the crux of the matter, that " “mercenary” meets the wp:neutral point of view test of WP:VERIFIABILITY in the mutually agreed-upon RS." It is a generic and common term used by almost all sources that cover the hessian involvement in the ARW. As such we should used this widely recognized term. It would be understandable if there were lots of sources that employ both terms, but they don't – the use of auxiliary to define Germans in the ARW is exceptional, and the few attempts to substantiate that term are highly opinionated and attempt to ignore the basic premise of what makes a soldier a mercenary. ie.Hired soldiers who fight in foreign wars. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
XG – As before, you have not really explained how the consensus of eight editors has "died". This is the second time, recently, that you have tried to rationalize away a consensus when it is not in your favor. Once again, the discussion you claim has canceled out the consensus involved some back and forth talk between two other editors mostly, while one of them still maintained that mercenaries was the appropriate term. There was no new consensus established there simply because no one else came to your little discussion. As for your comment that the sources do not support the term mercenaries, we have some 40 scholarly sources, listed here, found in our Bibliography, that all use the term mercenaries, for the simple reason that the soldiers in question were rented out by the mercenary state, Hesse, which has a long history of renting out soldiers to fight in a foreign war they had no real interest in, in some cases rented out soldiers to countries that were at war with each other, where Hessian fought against Hessian. Mercenaries indeed. The attempt to promote some sort of rigid and official definition of mercenary is ridiculous, as mercenaries throughout history have varied in their capacity and involvements -- with the exception of two basic and defining items. i.e. They were hired. They fought in foreign wars they had no interest in. All else is academic and highly opinionated. This is why we go by the scholarly sources on the ARW, and they overwhelmingly employ the common and basic term mercenaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Application of sources

I have a question about your list of the sources that contain the word "mercenaries." Most of them appear to use the term auxiliaries as well. While American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 uses the term mercenaries while paraphrasing American complaints, the only time it uses the term to refer to a combatant in the war was in reference to Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who was a Prussian mercenary fighting on the American side. The Hessians are referred to as Hessian soldiers or simply Hessians.

Incidentally, a significant portion of Hessian soldiers were black people recruited in the American colonies. Paradoxically, if the Hessians were mercenaries then the blacks could not be, because they were British subjects fighting for the Crown. But if the Hessians were auxiliaries, then the blacks would be mercenaries, because they were fighting for a foreign army.

TFD (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I followed the first paragraph and can concur. But you lost me in the second paragraph. Could you "revise and extend remarks" as our good Members of Congress do from time to time? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD – Yes there are a few cases where the term auxiliary is used in conjunction with mercenaries, but the former term does not cancel out the latter, which is the definitive term -- the one that makes it clear that the soldiers in question were hired to fight in a foreign war. Auxiliary used by itself doesn't make that clear, at all. In the scholarly works listed above, taken from our Bibliography, while they don't use the term mercenaries after 'every' usage of Hessian, they do make it clear that these soldiers were mercenaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

RE @Gwillhickers: At the editorial adoption of the term “Auxiliaries” in the Infobox for no-bias, "mercenary" connected to foreign troops will prevail everywhere else. All your research can be included in any article discussion addressing foreign troops, engaged, in garrison, or on prison ships, in the context of all the wp:reliable resources; and you will see that the term “mercenary” as an attribution of foreign troops will prevail in each case. Please accept the win.

It is my understanding that there were adjective:mercenary German princes of the Holy Roman Empire with subsidiary connections to Britain’s George III. However, any soldiery as mercenaries:noun, individual contractors, were not to be found in America.

RE @The Four Deuces: Slaves joined the British for freedom, not for pay; they often were neither paid nor fed, and at Yorktown as the siege set in and the promised transport to New York City did not take Cornwallis' command off, the once British-freed troops were released (forced) into the swamps for recapture.

At the American revolt, from a cost perspective --- while principality conscripts were less costly than per Indian warrior, with village capital gunsmith and supplies --- the mercenary princes charged Britain more than previously for auxiliary support, they required troops to be under the immediate command of their own with their own flags, and the princes (not soldiery) would have continuing monthly payments for a calendar year after each soldier’s death or return. Additional funds were required from Britain for their pay, transport, provisioning, and equipage repair while in British service, along with indemnity for any men or equipage lost at sea.

Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

International law criteria

We have established that under international law, they are auxiliaries, not mercenaries, but the revolutionaries called them mercenaries and that is the common name although reliable sources also refer to them as auxiliaries or use the terms interchangeably. I think the best approach would be to use the accurate term and explain that they are commonly but inaccurately referred to as mercenaries. You keep saying that technically they were mercenaries, but despite my requests have provided no legal texts to support your claim.

TVH, if a mercenary is someone who joins a foreign army for money, then blacks who joined the Hessian army could be seen as mercenaries. On the other hand, if the Hessians were mercenaries, then they would be part of the British not the Hessian army, and those people would have joined the British army. Since the colonies were under British law still under British jurisdiction, they would be seen as no different from any other British subject serving in the British Army.

TFD (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Better get your prose straight. Mercenaries are not those who join a 'foreign army' -- they are soldiers who were hired to fight in a 'foreign war'. In any case, blacks fighting with Hessians, mercenaries or not, doesn't change the basic premise that the Hessians were hired soldiers who fought in a foreign war.

British Historian Brendan Simms routinely uses the term mercenaries" in reference to the Hessians throughout his work.
British historian Jeremy Black refers to Hesse as a "mercenary state", in his work, p. 186. (listed/linked above)
Scottish historian Hamish Scott employs the term mercenaries in his 1990 work.
Rodney Atwood, a Canadian historian, in his work, The Hessians, refers to the Hessians as both auxiliaries and mercenaries -- but the term Mercenaries occurs on the title page
William Lecky an Irish (UK) historian of the Whig persuasion (The Whigs' key policy positions were the supremacy of Parliament) employs the term mercenaries to describe the Hessians.

- just to dispel the notion that the term mercenaries is some American invention only used by Americans. The idea that the term mercenary is a derogatory reference is not at all an unfounded one, and we should not be using the term auxiliary in a POV attempt to overshadow that idea. However, we use the term descriptively and neutrally, and if anyone should take exception to the term that is their own affair.
As for the 1977 'legal' definition, authored more than a century after the ARW, which has not been ratified by the U.S., as you say, it doesn't change the idea behind what a mercenary is in essence - hired soldiers who fight in foreign wars – and that which gives rise to its common usage among historians, past and present, and overwhelmingly used in the sources of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, I'm getting 'mixed reviews' on where you stand at this point. During the May 2017 discussion these are a few definitive statements that were made by you, which I would hope you still hold to be true:

The term mercenary is a neutral term and is still used to refer to the Papal Guard, Ghurkas and French Foreign Legion. The term "auxiliaries" is not a good substitute, since they can be professional, volunteer or conscripted soldiers from the belligerent countries.<TFD>
I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary."<TFD> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote that more than three years ago and cannot recollect what I was referring to. I would expect though that if you or I refer to policy that when asked to cite it, that we would either cite it or back down. So again, can you cite any policies or guidelines that support use of the term mercenaries over auxiliaries? TFD (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I form my opinions based on evidence and arguments, and can change them based on additional information. That's why we have discussion pages. I was persuaded by the distinction drawn by Vattel, who was the "founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations," according to Clarence Thomas,[7] and by the JAG article on mercenaries. Also, once captured, the Americans treated them more like foreign troops than mercenaries. They didn't take them out and shoot them. I also note that they were commanded by Hessian officers holding allegiance to their German princes, while typically mercenaries would be commanded by British officers holding allegiance to the king. TFD (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD — Yes, opinions can change. Fair enough. How Americans treated some mercenaries is interesting. In fact, American prisoners on prison ships in the East River were often treated better by Hessians than by the British, but these events don't lend any credence, either way, to the debate on how the Hessians should be referred to. My prior assessment of the Hessians, though somewhat typical, given their capacity, was generally true, but there were indeed exceptions worth mentioning. Christof Mauch's 2003 work, Images of America—Political Myths—Historiography: "Hessians" in the War of Independence offers some interesting insights as to how the Hessians were perceived by both the British and Americans, but again, this tends to get away from the discussion of how they are referred to by most scholars on the ARW. The legal reference, btw, pertains to modern times and should not be anachronistically applied to the past. No doubt the laws and rules pertaining to mercenaries (if any for a given time period) have changed over the centuries. To simplify matters we go with the common term the scholars use that focuses on what defines a mercenary. i.e.Hired soldiers who fight in foreign wars. All else is academic and too often highly opinionated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, so you're saying that although they would not be considered mercenaries today under international law and were not considered mercenaries before the ARW under international law, that during the intervening period they were mercenaries and yet you cannot present any legal textbook that says that. TVH, I think the infobox is too cluttered. TFD (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, I did not assert anything in terms of international law that would define a mercenary. All along I've asserted the basic premise that defines all mercenaries. i.e.Hired soldiers who fight in foreign wars, regardless of any law that may have existed in modern times, or before. Per the policy you referred to before, we say what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
XG - Germany did not declare war on America, nor did America declare war on Germany. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what policy was that? TFD (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The one you referred to: "I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be impossible for "Germany" to declare war on anyone, since no Germany existed until 1871. In the eyes of the British and German principalities, they were suppressing a domestic British rebellion in its colonies. None of them recognized the independence of the United States, so its no surprise that no declarations of war were issued by the British or the German principalities. Hardly ever does a sovereign state declare war against rebels. For example, there was no declaration of war against the rebels in the German Peasants' War nor against the Irish Republic during the Irish Rebellion of 1798.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Germany, the official country, wasn't established until 1871. They may not have declared war, but they certainly were at war - with rebels. The question still remains about whether hired mercenaries, or auxiliaries, qualify as belligerents. It's understandable how some would tend to think so, since the Hessians comprised some 1/3 of Britian's fighting force on the continent. Yet we've been told by some that American independence was "merely one issue". Such an earnest and expensive effort for merely one issue ! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that the war started prior to the 13 colonies declaring independence, there certainty was more at issue than independence during the war.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, issues over mounting taxation, no colonial representation, oppressive acts, et al. But once war was declared the big issue sort of presented itself, so much so that the King had to hire help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Mercenaries v Auxiliaries, continued

As was pointed out above, there was an overwhelming consensus of editors who opted to use the term mercenaries over that of auxiliaries. There has been no other established consensus since then that would cancel out that consensus. The discussion that occurred sometime after had varying ideas but there was no unified consensus established there. One editor, suggested using no adjective, another was undecided, and one preferred the use of mercenaries and outlined several scholarly sources that referred to the "Mercenary state of Hesse-Cassell".^[2] The idea that the Hessians were conscripted by no means cancels out the fact that these were hired soldiers rented out by Hesse-Cassle, widely considered a mercenary state with a long history of renting out soldiers for no other reason than for profit.

We were referred to a source, Taylor, 1992, but on page 479 Taylor indeed says, "The mercenary state of Hesse-Cassel, in responding to a market for trained military units, constructed a military system...". In Taylor's bibliography he lists Rodney Atwood, 1980. The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution.

The secondary and often academic distinctions that are used to refer to auxiliaries are not recognized by almost all the sources that refer to the Hessians in our Bibliography, and as such, we should go by what the sources say and employ the common name, widely recognized. i.e.Hired soldiers fighting in a foreign war. We can add a footnote that clarifies that they were conscripted first, then hired out, thus presenting both POVs. Meanwhile we should say what the greater majority of sources on the ARW say, esp since there has been no new consensus established. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources you provided typically use the terms mercenary and auxiliary interchangeably. At least one of them used term mercenary to refer to a Prussian soldier who had joined the U.S. Army, not to Hessians. They explain that the common description, particularly among the American revolutionaries, was mercenary although legally they were auxiliaries not mercenaries. While there may be good arguments for using either term, we need to clarify that their actual legal status. TFD (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point - the two terms are often used interchangeably and can often be synonymous with the other. However, we should use what the greater majority of the sources on the ARW use, as you once indicated we should do. If you like we can add a footnote about any "legal" considerations, per source(s), so long as it pertains to the time period in question. --

^ Miller, 1959. p. 477
^
* Axelrod - 2013. Mercenaries: A Guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies
- Boatner, 1974. German Mercenaries" in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, p. 426
- Ingrao, 2003. The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform -- with other quotes and reference.
- See also: Schmidt, 1958: Journal: THE HESSIAN MERCENARIES: THE CAREER OF A POLITICAL CLICHÉ, pp. 207-212
  Schmidt covers how the Hessian mercenaries were viewed in much of Germany. King Frederick II of Prussia, who scorned the Hesse-Cassell mercenary state, issued an order forbidding the transit through Prussian territory of all mercenaries hired for the American War.(pp.208-209)

Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

But please notice the source refers to the "mercenary state". The princes were mercenary, the soldiers were not mercenaries. Soldiers serving in America received no personally negotiated benefit but the opportunity to desert as 30 percent did, and post-war, an introduction for their families to immigrate. George III, also prince of Hanover, took British money, but he stationed his Hanoverian troops on the walled and entrenched rock of Gibraltar, where, in the event of a desertion, there were no welcoming arms awaiting them in Catholic Spain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the author refers to the soldiers as auxialiaries more often than mercenaries, usually calling them Hessians or soldiers. TVH, the monarch refused to pay for the return of half the soldiers. A large number also moved to Canada, where the Crown provided them with farmland. Hessians normally anglicized their names and married local women, so quickly assimilated into society. if they were particularly criminal, given their large numbers, it would have been noticed after the conclusion of the ARW. They certainly assimilated faster than later immigrant groups. TFD (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The main consideration is that these were hired soldiers paid to fight in a foreign war they had no interest in. There is no detailed and official list of criteria that a soldier has to meet to be referred to as a mercenary other than the basic ideas that they were hired soldiers who fought in a foreign war. This is how 'Webster' defines it -- all else is historically academic and varies depending on the time period involved. Again, almost all the sources in our Bibliography refer to the Hessians as mercenaries, while some indeed refer to them interchangeably as auxiliaries within the same given work. We also have a standing consensus that would be inconsiderate to many other editors if we were to flat out ignore it, especially if we are also ignoring policy that says we should refer to matters as our sources have, per due weight. Policy : If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. Since nearly all of our sources in the Bibliography refer to the Hessians as mercenaries, as do many scholarly journals and other sources, this is what we should refer to them as. We could include a footnote that distinguishes the Hessians in their auxiliary capacity, that they were conscripted and often deserted, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, why are you creating a new thread for these comments when they are plainly a continuation of the discussion you have already opened above? You should be continuing the conversation in the same thread previously created above to avoid confusing editors coming to this page.XavierGreen (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, well it seems to me, from another point of view, a week intervened from the previous section, without any additional comment along that line of argument, and Gwillhickers wanted to attack the problem afresh with another angle of attack, and additional linked sources he had gathered for discussion here over the intervening days. We are grateful he did not choose to break up another discussion on another topic by posting out of chronological order, don't you think? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Notice the link in the first sentence of this section, not to mention the title of this section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I'd like to be clear on this point. I agree that the preponderance of sources we have laid before us, do term the German soldiers serving George III in America as a "mercenary force" or as "mercenaries" for short. But as it is also true that the provocative and condemnatory term "mercenary" was used in the Patriot press (a) to enflame their own partisans and (b) to sow hesitation among neighboring Loyalists in communities nearby German encampments.

- At the Infobox term for 'British combatants' related to German troops:

- Firstly, my ADVOCATED CHOICE, the neutral term "German auxiliaries", that I find is technically correct for the time and treaties; secondly, a CONCURRING CHOICE, the neutral term, "Germans" without qualifiers; and lastly, my DEPRECATED CHOICE, the loaded term "German mercenaries", with the negative connotation found in Patriot propaganda.

- The use of "mercenaries" upfront and out of context in the Infobox at first glance at the top of the article, might mistakenly mislead the general reader with English-as-a-second-language, leaving an initial impression of bias in the Wikipedia editorial voice for this important article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

While this is possible, the term mercenaries is by no means exclusive to the American dialect and has been used for centuries throughout history. The term auxiliaries, currently used by itself in the info-box, could likewise mislead many of the readers. Many European hierarchies, including the King of Prussia, knew well of the mercenary state of Hesse-Cassell, and its reputation of hired soldiers, conscripted or not, and were understandably referred to as mercenaries. I'm sure King George and his cohorts regarded the term as "propaganda", but his claim could just as well be referred to as propaganda.
To employ a simple analogy - the term "thief" is naturally considered a derogatory term, but it's still a definitive and accurate term used to describe people who steal. It doesn't matter if the thief was stealing for the poor, or for some cause, or if there were other secondary considerations – the individual is still considered a thief for the simple and basic reason that the person stole things. Likewise with mercenaries – soldiers who were hired to fight in foreign wars they cared not about. That they were conscripted and paid the same as British regulars does not change that basic premise. Imo, it would be best to use the common term that most of the scholars do, with a footnote, and further explanatory coverage in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, normally we don't refer to conscripts as hired soldiers. But to continue on your point, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid most of the cost of the Gulf War and Germaine Greer called the allied soldiers mercenaries. Is that a fair description that should go into articles? TFD (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally? Once again, the conscripted 'soldiers' in question were ultimately hired to fight in a war they could care less about. How do we get around that? It's best to go with the sources, as you once asserted, and add a footnote and coverage in the narrative to clarify matters. That seems like a fair medium. The Hessian mercenaries had a long established and well earned reputation of being exactly that. Let's not sugar-coat the idea and use the common term used by most scholars. The info-box as it is is highly misleading, cited by one cherry picked source, apparently, and presents a due weight issue. I've no problem with mentioning that the soldiers in question were conscripted and that many of them deserted and appreciated the freedoms and the new life that were available to them in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RE: Gwillhickers. So, it can be Infobox - British combatant - German mercenaries [Note], with the Note explaining, "the soldiers in question were conscripted and that many of them deserted and appreciated the freedoms and the new life that were available to them in America".

That seems reasonable to me, were The Four Deuces to be kind enough to contribute the note itself. But, if he's not ready at this time to do so, maybe we should stick with just unmodified Infobox "Germans", and we can chew on it some more. Maybe its time to make a wp:Request for Comment on the subject from both 'Military history Project' and 'American Revolution Project'? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The book listed by Gwhillickers above, The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution by Rodney Atwood, Cambridge University Press, 1980, begins on page one by explaining that the Hessians were not mercenaries but auxiliaries. It then explains the law on pp. 22-23. Hiring troops to other nations was accepted in international law. It was a right under natural law and allowed by the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 which is the basis of modern international law. Legal scholars defined mercenaries as individuals who hired themselves to foreign armies. "Thus the Hessians of whom we are dealing were, strictly speaking, auxiliaries and not mercenaries." TFD (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

TVH, I don't see any reason to list them in the info-box unless we are listing the various regiments. In that case they would come under Great Britain because (whatever we call them) they were fighting for Great Britain. Also, see the Falklands War: the Belligerents section merely says United Kingdom and Argentina, although a Ghurka regiment of mercenaries recruited from the Kingdom of Nepal also participated.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(1) the Atwood cite is pretty good evidence to go for "German auxiliary" in the Infobox, were we to go for an RfC. (In the Second British Empire, for the Brits, the gotta-have-with-you-guys were the Ghurkas, the Sikhs, and a third I don't recall. The Four Deuces, it seems we are pretty much agreed here.

(2) In a manner of speaking, the Infobox does now refer to the "mercenary state" troops by regiment, as several treaties call out "one regiment of infantry" or "one regiment of artillery", and they are represented in the Infobox at the by their respective German-state flags nested in the [show] lists (the Infobox-coded 'collapsible list' items). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that in the current version.[8] It's probably best to leave the terms out of the info-box because mercenary is inaccurate, while auxiliary is a technical term not understood by most readers. The third group btw was the Pashtuns. All three groups were recruited from peoples who lived beyond the frontiers of the empire and were led by British officers. TFD (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah! thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that even modern day mercenaries, unless on some special covert mission, or some such, don't go off into battle foolishly as a bunch of individuals with their own battle plan; they usually are under the command of the prevailing army and work in coordination with them, as did the Hessians – but this also doesn't change their status as mercenaries. We should focus on the idea that mercenaries are hired soldiers, regardless if they are state sponsored, or if they are paid no more than regular army. This is how the sources refer to them, and this is how the readers will recognize this basic idea. i.e.Hired soldiers. Auxiliaries doesn't convey that idea. Readers unfamiliar with the ARW could likely be led to believe that the Hessians, listed under belligerents, were allies of the British in the same manner as the French were to the Americans, all working towards a shared objective. Hessians had no such objective and were simply hired to go out and fight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

editbreak1

The term is "inaccurate" only in a legal sense, if that. As TFD pointed out, the terms mercenaries and auxiliaries are often used interchangeably, as does Atwood's narrative -- e.g.the term Mercenaries is part of the very title of his book. On the pages cited, pp. 22-23, he says "By 1776 the hiring of military corps ... was accepted.". No reference is made to either mercenaries or auxiliaries in that statement. On p. 1 Atwood says, "By common usage, however, the Hessians have been called mercenaries. In this work I refer to them both as auxiliaries and mercenaries." Any legal considerations are just that -- legal considerations. In the common realm they were and are considered mercenaries for the simple reason that they were hired out by a mercenary state to fight in a foreign war. This is indeed how the Americans viewed them and is a consideration that can't be ignored without censuring the American perspective. Regardless of any international law that allowed the hiring of military corps, the Hessians were still hired soldiers fighting in a foreign war. The arrival of thousands of Hessians in America is largely what convinced the patriots to make the break with what they now understandably viewed as a tyrannical king.^[1]^[2] Since nearly all the sources in our Bibliography that mention Hessians or Germans refer to them as mercenaries this must be acknowledged in the info-box and in the narrative, per the Policy that was cited above, giving due weight in accordance to the proportion our sources use this common and widely recognizable term. As such, we could have the info-box read mercenaries / auxiliaries with a note that clarifies matters. We should not ignore the terms that our scholars use and refer to the Hessians as. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

H. D. Schmidt, 1958, The Hessian mercenaries: the career of a political cliche, pp. 207-212, makes it perfectly clear that the term mercenaries was the common term in Germany when the issue of sending the Hessians to America was hotly debated between the Prussians and Hanoverians.^[3] The issue was also debated in Parliament, while the French referred to the practice of sending mercenaries to America in less than favorable terms. Schmidt writes, "In France an eloquent voice called on the Hessians and other Germans no longer to suffer the use of their citizens as mercenaries by an odious despotism..."^[4] The term auxiliary does not occur once in Schmidt's work, and I suspect that it's largely adopted by a few modern day revisionists to sugar-coat the idea that the soldiers in question were hired out to fight in a foreign war they cared nothing about, unlike the British, French and Americans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

^ Lowell, p. 36
^ Fredriksen, 2006. p. 348
^ Schmidt, 1958, pp. 208-209
^ Schmidt, 1958, p. 208

Schmidt's article doesn't say that anyone in the UK, France or Germany referred to them as mercenaries. For example, although "the young Schiller immortalized the traffic in German mercenaries to America in his drama Kabale and Liebe," I could not find any use of the term in his play. I don't know why you think that a few modern day revisionists are trying to rewrite history. Who are they? And I imagine most British and French soldiers did not care about the war either. In fact neither did most Americans. TFD (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Dozens of references are made to foreign and German mercenaries in reference to Parliament, France, the political debate in Germany, et al – not one reference is made to auxiliaries. Not sure what your point is about the play, and your last sentence is completely opinionated, esp in regards to the Americans, which seems will only serve to divert the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

While it's proof that they were mentioned in France, the UK and Germany, your source doesn't say what they called them. Schiller for example, who is one of the dozens of references, didn't use the term. They are refered to as "volunteers" who went to America in Act II Scene II of Kabale and Liebe. The sources cited in the article probably would not have used the term mercenary because it would have been confusing, since actual mercenaries were a major feature in European armies at the time. TFD (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Auxiliaries is the generic and non-definitive term. Mercenaries, a long established concept, is straight forward and has been widely used throughout history, and by the vast majority of sources on the ARW, and elsewhere. i.e.Hired soldiers, conscripted or not, who went off to fight in foreign wars they had no interest in. Hesse-Cassel was not referred to as a Mercenary state by the King of Prussia, much of Europe and America, and many sources, for any whimsical reason. As mentioned above, Hessian mercenaries were at times sent to countries who were at war with the other, where Hessian was fighting against Hessian. To refer to these soldiers as anything less than mercenaries would amount to something less than objective historical coverage. Let's not try to obscure the major idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You said that already. Repeating arguments clutters the discussion thread and is not persuasive. TFD (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Interchangeability of mercenaries and auxiliaries

Fetter, Frank Whitson (October 1980). "Who Were the Foreign Mercenaries of the Declaration of Independence?". The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 104 (4). University of Pennsylvania Press: pp. 508-513. JSTOR 20091517. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Examples of the interchangeability of the terms mercenaries and auxiliaries existed in the 18th century, a classic example being evident in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. In one ommitted clause, when it was "mangled" by Congress, according to Jefferson, he refers to "the Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries", which offended two Scotch members of Congress, John Witherspoon and James Wilson, so the reference to Scotch mercenaries, among other items, was dropped. Jefferson some years later explained the situation in a letter of December 4, 1818, to Robert Walsh:

In Fetter's 1980 essay he explains:

Jefferson's letter to Robert Walsh, Dec 4, 1818: "... When the Declaration of Independence was under the consideration of Congress, there were two or three unlucky expressions in it which gave offense to some members. The words 'Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries" [Jefferson*s use of the term "auxiliaries" is understandable, inasmuch as "the British regularly referred to mercenary troops as auxiliaries] excited the ire of a gentleman or two of that country."^[1] (emphasis mine - Gw)

Hessee-Cassell had already hired out mercenaries to England, Austria and Spain in the early 18th century^[2] which is largely how Hesse-Cassell came to be known as the "Mercenary state", regardless of any legal considerations that surfaced in the mid 18th century. This is why the common and definitive reference has always been mercenaries, as is evident in our sources, even though there are a few modern sources who prefer the ambiguous term auxiliaries. Again, we are compelled by due-weight policy, which consensus can not override, to employ the common and definitive term of mercenaries used by most sources on the ARW, and others, regardless of any secondary considerations some sources prefer to focus on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

^ Fetter, 1980, p. 509
^ Schmidt, 1958, p. 207

That shows us that the normal term used by the British and Americans was auxiliary and was changed because the word mercenary was emotive and pejorative if inaccurate. The Founding Fathers were extremely knowledgeable about the law and would have known the difference between a mercenary and an auxiliary. It's interesting too that they decided not to use the epithet against Scottish soldiers. Due weight incidentally says nothing about what terminology we should use. There is no dispute about how the position of the Hessians. They were conscripted by German princes who received compensation from the British treasury. TFD (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It shows no such thing, and there is plenty of dispute. Yes, the founding fathers were knowledgeable about the law, which only lent it self to the practice of hiring out soldiers to fight in foreign wars, regardless of what they were referred to as, and still used the common term mercenaries. The Americans did not contest the hiring of mercenaries over any international law, which they obviously didn't recognize, but on social and ethical grounds as it concerned the King. Jefferson employed the widely used and recognized term in the Declaration of Independence. Hesse was not referred to as the auxiliary state, but the "Mercenary state" by much of Europe and America because of its long standing reputation of hiring out soldiers, conscripted or not. Once again, our sources overwhelmingly use the term mercenaries, as do numerous scholarly journals. Our policy clearly says, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Our sources overwhelmingly use the term mercenary, so we lend due weight to that term, with a footnote about conscriptions and other secondary considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't find this writing in the original source.[9] [10] But it shows that Jefferson originally used the term auxiliaries and it was changed for political reasons. That actually happens a lot today. Terms that were widely accepted become politically incorrect. Why do you think the Americans did not didn't recognize international law? It was the American revolution, not the Iranian revolution. The only law they objected to was statues of Parliament, since they believed that only the legislatures they elected could pass statutes that bound them.

Also, you are misinterpreting policy. Reliable sources do not disagree on facts or opinions, they just use different terms to describe the same thing. The article [[7 Up] says it is a "soft drink." Other people might refer to it as pop or soda or fizzy drink. That doesn't mean there is disagreement about what it is, just what term to use.

TFD (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The original source was actually an enclosure in the letter.[11] Although Jefferson doesn't explain why the word auxiliary was changed to mercenary, it's clear that it was his original wording. If Thomas Jefferson had had his way, we wouldn't be having this discussion. TFD (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't show Jefferson "originally" used the term auxiliary, and it's only an opinion that Jefferson used the term mercenaries as "propaganda". Saying the D.O.I. has propaganda in it could be considered propaganda, so it's best to leave the opinionated weasel claims out of the discussion. The indisputable fact is that Jefferson used the term foreign mercenaries in the D.O.I. He didn't make reference to regular troops -- just mercenaries. The overwhelming majority of our sources use the more common and recognizable term mercenaries. Policy says when the sources disagree we give weight to the different ideas accordingly. The soda pop analogy is silly. Pop, soda, etc are the same thing. You, otoh, have gone through lengths trying to explain the difference between mercenaries and auxiliaries. They are indeed terms but represent different ideas. Having a change of opinion when other considerations arise is one thing, but your apparent and complete turn around about policy is a bit troubling.

The term "auxiliaries" is not a good substitute, since they can be professional, volunteer or conscripted soldiers from the belligerent countries.
I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary."<TFD>

As said before, the term auxiliary is ambiguous and can be used for a number of ideas, as you pointed out. Otoh, the term mercenaries refers to one central idea -- hired soldiers who fight in foreign wars they have no interest in. Any legality or conscription involved is secondary, was of no concern to the Americans, and doesn't change the primary idea. Hessel-Cassel was referred to as a mercenary state for the simple reason that it had a long and established reputation of hiring out soldiers to anyone who would pay for them, including countries that were at war with each other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson wrote, "When the Declaration of Independence was under the consideration of Congress, there were two or three unlucky expressions in it which gave offence to some members. The words ‘Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries’ excited the ire of a gentleman or two of that country." So yes it does show that Jefferson originally used the term auxiliary or at least thought he did. TFD (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson only says it gave offense to some because he used it in reference to some Scotts. He went on to use the basic term anyways, and none of this touches on the bulk of the issues you're skirting, per common usage, primary meaning and the policy you once held up but are now apparently ignoring. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You said, "It doesn't show Jefferson "originally" used the term auxiliary." You were wrong. If you thought it made no difference to the discussion you should not have brought it up. TFD (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Evasive nonsense. Can you show us where Jefferson "originally" used the term auxiliary and that this is what he's always maintained, with a source that supports this in no uncertain terms, as compared to mercenaries, as he went so far as to include in the Declaration of Independence? It's rather apparent there is no such source to be found. All you've narrowly pointed at is one incidence. The assertion is an assumption and a digression, aside from your apparent abandonment of your previous position regarding policy. You haven't presented anything that gets around the central idea that King George hired mercenaries from a mercenary state to fight in a foreign war they cared nothing about, which is term used by the overwhelming majority of our sources. I only "repeat" things when they are ignored in what's supposed to be a good-faith discussion.

Your original quotes:
— The term "auxiliaries" is not a good substitute, since they can be professional, volunteer or conscripted soldiers from the belligerent countries.
— It acknowledges the Geneva Convention definition and says the Hessians were mercenaries. Do you have any reliable sources that say the Hessians were not mercenaries? Did the Hessians swear allegiance to the King of the Great Britain?
— I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary." <TFD>

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I see from this thread that (a) Jefferson in his own words uses the term "auxiliaries", and (b) we recall that the DoI as submitted by Jefferson was amended from the floor, to "publish, for the consideration of mankind" (Adams), the Patriot-propaganda term to evoke the greatest empathy to self-government among European Enlightenment philosophe-advocates. Thus the phrase in the DoI "the merciless Indian Savages", which we have NOT ADOPTED AS WP:EDITORIAL VOICE in the Infobox. Rather we use the term, "Combatant, Native Americans", which is regarded as more neutral.

Please note, the neutral editorial voice for this article persists even in the Native American section, without reference to the overwhelmingly common usage among Patriots, and scholars reporting their phraseology at the time as, "merciless Indian Savages". Let us be consistent here in applying a neutral term to the German soldiery in the Infobox, and then qualify reference to them as "mercenaries" in the article with a phrase such as, "known by the Patriots as" --- in the same way we might TOLERATE an editor to use the Declaration phrase in the article, but ONLY IN CONTEXT, "Native Americans were vilified as 'merciless Indian savages' in the weekly Patriot press and in their broadsides posted at county Courthouses."

For contemporary international context, there were pro-American cliques to directly appeal to among the MONARCH COURTS in France, Spain, and especially those among the "Enlightened Despots" who will later join into an League of Armed Neutrality who had warred with Hesse, Brunswick and Ansbach recently: the rulers of Russia, Austria, Sweden and Prussia, all trading with the Americans via the Dutch entrepôt at Sint Eustatius. So, the Declaration says George III is transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, [with the] cruelty & perfidy [from] the most barbarous ages, i.e., the Euro religious wars at the Protestant Reformation, or the Muslim Conquest overrunning the gates of Europe.

I also see that despite The Four Deuces earlier assertion relative to the merits of applying the term "auxiliary" versus "mercenary" AT FIRST IN THE INFOBOX, without context, he now refutes his earlier stated preference with two wp:reliable source references to more effectively persuade in discussion here, now, this time, to a different point, in wp:good faith. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Compromise

TVH, thanks for your words of conciliation. Jefferson's use of the term auxiliary, as Fetter explains, is ued in reference to the Scotts, and as he points out the term auxiliaries is what the British preferred to call their hired foreign soldiers, rather than the blunt but more accurate term of mercenaries, which from their pov is understandable. There is also an American and European pov we must consider. Also, mercenary is a noun that defines hired soldiers, not an adjective as is merciless savages in reference to the Indians, so used properly, the term mercenaries can be used in a neutral capacity. Let's also remember, we don't base our reasoning on the shoulders of Jefferson, or any one example or source. Jefferson was rather curt in writing the DOI, so chances are he was the one who used the term mercenaries, which remained in the document, as did many other items that Jefferson authored. i.e. The DOI was amended, in part, but it wasn't completely rewritten. In any case, we can't ignore due-weight policy by ignoring the usage of mercenaries by the overwhelming majority of our sources, (not saying you're advocating this) or can we ignore the long established and less than flattering reputation of the mercenary state of Hesse-Cassel, who for hundreds of years had hired out mercenaries in Europe. The info box can not favor one POV, esp in the face of dozens of reliable sources used in this very article. As I suggested before, the info-box could read, mercenaries / auxiliaries, with an explanatory footnote, and further clarification in the narrative. With all the sources at our disposal, it would be a matter of routine to cite this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are two errors of fact in your comments. Jefferson wrote about ‘Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries’ (his italics) not just Scottish auxiliaries. Quotes are used when directly citing text. Second, mercenary is not more accurate. As you are aware, Vattel explained the difference and the modern definition of mercenary accepted by most countries by UN treaty today does not include auxiliaries. The British did not prefer to use the term auxiliary, but used the term that was generally understood at the time. Please alter your postings so that we can discuss the issue based on accurate information. TFD (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Speaking of errors, according to Fetter, p. 509, "the British regularly referred to mercenary troops as auxiliaries", while here you are claiming they didn't. However, if they did use the term mercenaries that would be yet another good reason for us to use the term. Now you're sniping at the menial and not responding to everything else. While Jefferson also mentioned other foreign mercenaries, he was still concerned how it effected his Scott compatriots. And Vattle's 'legal' opinion was not embraced by the Americans, the King of Prussia and by most of our sources. The UN did not exists during the ARW, so as was explained to you, we can not anachronistically apply modern day considerations to the distant past. This is a basic rule for objective historical writing. You are still clinging to secondary considerations which doesn't change the basic fact that mercenaries are hired soldiers who fight in foreign wars they have no interest in. Any legality, recognized or not, has no bearing on that basic premise and the resultant common term most scholars use. Apparently it is your intention to ignore the majority of sources and your previous position. i.e.I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary." Meanwhile, there was no consensus for the info-box with its one cherry-picked source. It needs to reflect both POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You have not provided any source that says Europeans used the term mercenaries to refer to auxiliaries. You say that the U.S. did not respect international law, but as explained in The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, Vattel's book "became the standard text on the subject in Europe and the Americas for more than half a century, with the result that its definitions of key terms in what we would now call international law and international reliabtions became standard within the world of European - and, increasingly also American - diplomay." (p. 38) The book then goes on to explain the use of Vattel's book in drafting the Declaration of Independence. TFD (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Sorry, but the fact that the term foreign mercenaries occurs in the D.O.I. tells us Vattle's legal opinion was not recognized by the Americans. What source says that Vattel's legal opinion was binding law on the given countries? What sources says the term auxiliaries was the commonly used term over mercenaries?. Why isn't this reflected in the majority of the sources which use the definitive term mercenaries. You need a source that spells out the fact that the term mercenaries has been commonly used throughout history, esp in regards to Hesse-Cassell, the mercenary state? Last, let's not confuse legal opinion with the language commonly used then and now, esp in regards to the sources you seem ready to dismiss. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that best-practices wording would embrace "both-sides-of-the-Pond", both contemporaneously to the ARW and in modern RS, always with an eye to balanced, inclusive "North-Atlantic-FOUR-Continent-community" which beginning in 1500 was increasingly linked by (a) trade, merchants, financiers, and (b) shared multi-lingual, multi-national ship captains, navigators, and sailors port-intermarriage. The wp:editorial methodology for this article should emulate Pauline Maier's pioneering example in this field of history scholarship.

But, wp:editorially, avoid forcing a second line at 'Germans' in the Infobox, British Combatants section, preferrably without an overwrite of the [ show ] font. Alternatively, it might just be "Germans [Note]", with the objective introduction, "Germans participated as British combatants by Treaties of Subsidy between their princes and Great Britain. They were alternatively termed "Mercenaries" by Patriots, or "Auxiliaries" by the British." Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is basically what I had in mind, using objective and neutral statements not presented as absolute fact. I'll leave it to you to render the info-box and a footnote and any additions to the narrative that reflects a balanced POV which does not ignore our sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal textbooks, or any textbooks, are not written to express the authors' opinions, but to explain how the law is generally understood. As the source explains, far from being a rogue nation, the United States relied on the principles of international law as explained by Vattel and other legal scholars to justify its declaration of independence (as the source I provided clearly shows) and to carry out foreign relations. Where they diverted was in using the term mercenary in polemical writing rather than auxiliary. However the Hessians when captured were treated as auxiliaries rather than mercenaries. But I can find no example of any other case where auxiliaries are generally referred to as mercenaries. If I am wrong, then you should have no problem in finding a legal textbook that says they are generally defined them as mercenaries. TFD (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, scholarly sources are not written to reflect Vattel's legal opinion. The issue you've not addressed is why did the Americans not recognize Vattle's legal opinion, as is evident in the D.O.I., and the idea that the advent of foreign mercenaries coming to America is largely what convinced patriots to make a break with the British Crown. We have dozens of sources that support the idea that mercenaries is the common and largely recognized term, sources which you once claimed we should follow. Now listen to you. You're clinging to a legal opinion. We have plenty of sources that do indeed refer to the Hessians as mercenaries. i.e.Soldiers hired to fight in a war they had no interest in. What sources do you possess that confirms that the Americans recognized Vattle's non-binding legal opinion? This far all you've produced is a source that focuses on Vattel, as if he was some supreme ruler over international law, if indeed there are any such actual laws -- you've not supported that idea, in the least, either. Thanks, but I'll settle on the opinions of dozens of scholars as opposed to your Vattel source. Vattle's legal opinion doesn't change the fact that the soldiers in question were hired via a long standing mercenary state to fight in a foreign war they cared not about, regardless of what label you're attempting to affix to them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The drafters of the DOI decided to use the term mercenary instead of auxiliary. That's an issue of semantics, not law. Their use of the term became the most common one for Hessian and other auxiliary soldiers. Modern writers generally use the words interchangeably when referring to them. As TVH points out, this article does not refer to Native Americans as savages, just because the term was used in the Declaration of Independence. Ironically, here the DOI used the accepted legal term under international law at the time.

As I explained before, Vattel was one of the accepted authorities on international law for the founding fathers and they used international law in order to justify independence. Vattel did not invent international law, any more than the authors of a physics textbook invent the laws of physics. Like them, he merely reported what was generally accepted. I am still waiting for you to provide a legal authority for your definition of mercenary. I know that a non-legal definition would be someone who is paid to fight, or someone who does any work for money, but that could apply to any soldier.

TFD (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No one said Vittel invented international law. The patriots, e.g. Jefferson, Washington, Paine, et al, justified independence of their own accord. They didn't have to consult any remote legal opinion to realize they were being treated extremely unfairly. The opinion that the term mercenaries was some rarely used term until the D.O.I. came around is just that. What sources says that the D.O.I. was largely the product of Vittel's opinion? Apparently you're trying to make him into some legal god who is above scrutiny. According to you, Vittel justified the term auxiliaries and as such they were within the law when they arrived in America — yet we're supposed to believe that Vittel had this major influence over the Founding Fathers who despised the arrival of hired foreign soldiers in America. (!) Meanwhile you seem to be skirting the issue over sources, with the apparent intention of dismissing them.

What were you talking about when you said this? : — Also see Holger P. Hestermeyer, "Mercenaries", The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force: The Max Planck Encyclopedia, p. 682. It acknowledges the Geneva Convention definition and says the Hessians were mercenaries.<TFD> Doesn't this modern source, a "legal authority" you asked for, contradict Vittel? Aside from just putting out empty unsourced conjecture about the occurrence of the term mercenaries, entities that have existed throughout history, and about Vittel who was virtually ignored when Jefferson wrote the D.O.I. (he cited incidents overall, not law), it's becoming difficult to put much faith in your conflicting assertions at this point. Esp in light of these other quote of yours. — I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary.",<TFD> along with your recent above quote, Modern writers generally use the words interchangeably when referring to them.<TFD> Does this mean you don't have any issue with using both terms, mercenaries and auxiliaries, in the info box, thus representing the two schools of thought, and that you stick by your assertion that we should abide by the preponderance of reliable sources, per policy? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say the Hessians were mercenaries. It merely says they were "hired out by their own rulers." It then says in Part D Definition: "Art. 47 (2) Additional Protocol I contains the most influential definition of the term ‘mercenary’ under international law: A mercenary is any person who (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."

I didn't say that the DOI was the result of Vattel's opinion, but that "used international law in order to justify independence." As a source I provided above said, "It is no coincidence that the conception of statehood as independence found in the Declaration of Independence resembled Vattel's so closely." And Clarence Thomas (he's a U.S. Supreme Court judge by the way, still on the bench) said Vattel was the "founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations." But I suppose you think the DOI was written by God hence had no earlier influences.

I don't know why you keep referring to what I wrote several years ago. Like many people, I change my opinions based on new information. The world would be a better place if more people did that.

TFD (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed your opinion? It's like you moved to a different planet over the issue. You referred to a "legal authority", Max Planck Encyclopedia. Is this not a legal authority? No comment? You claimed that Vettel was "one of the accepted authorities on international law for the founding fathers and they used international law in order to justify independence" — which more than suggests that the D.O.I was thus influenced. Actually it was Thomas Paine's Common Sense which was one of the major influences on Jefferson's and others' thinking there. You were also asked to clarify a very recent quote, made directly above. i.e. "Modern writers generally use the words interchangeably when referring to them."<TFD> No comment? Changed your mind already? Sorry for the curt talk, but you've been flip-flopping and evading fair questions all along and have worn my patience rather thin. It seems we seen enough of this sort of discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course the Max Planck Encyclopedia is a "legal authority," but as I explained it does not say the Hessians were mercenaries. Since you either reject or misrepresent sources that don't support your position, I don't see that this discussion can have any further purpose. TFD (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented a single source and have gone through lengths of discussion asserting that we should abide by them, and lend due weight to them accordingly, per policy. This is one of the issues you kept ignoring as any review of the above discussion will reveal. You were the one who introduced Planck's legal Encyclopedia in the middle of a discussion about what to refer to Hessians as. It would seem you've been the one for rejecting sources. You have been treated fairly and any issue you've brought to the table has been addressed by myself and others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Foreign mercenaries

During the months before the Declaration of Independence was authored news had reached the colonies that foreign mercenaries were being sent there to put down the rebellion. During this time, and the months following, letters were exchanged between Jefferson, Washington, George Wythe, Henry Lee and others - the correspondence is filled with numerous references to foreign mercenaries.

Language used

A petition specifically addressed to the "foreign mercenaries" was written by George Wythe, the first American law professor, with the hopes that it would cause many of the Hessians to desert upon their arrival in America. This address for "foreign mercenaries" is to be found in Jefferson's papers with the Library of Congress<Thomas Jefferson Papers, 1606-1827 (5th Series, X), Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.>

Other references are found on pp. 8, 358, 369 in this source:

Ford, Worthington Chauncey (ed.). Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Vol. IV. Washington : U.S. Govt. printing office.

Here are just a couple examples of the language used:

Excerpt from vol 4, pp. 357-358 : — "no answer, whatever, to the humble petitions of the colonies for redress of grievances and reconciliation with Great Britain, has been or is likely to be given; but, the whole force of that kingdom, aided by foreign mercenaries, is to be exerted for the destruction of the good people of these colonies;

Excerpt from vol 5, p. 816: — "You are desired to get the best and earliest information that you possibly can of any negotiations that the Court of London may be carrying on for obtaining foreign mercenaries to be sent against these States the next Campaign;"

Other references to foreign mercenaries can be found in Vol 5, on pp. 479, 500, 513, 816

Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed. (1904). Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Vol. V . Washington : U.S. Govt. printing office.

Many letters were also sent to the Delegate of Congress expressing their concern over the impending arrival of the foreign mercenaries. These letters are available for viewing in the below source, on pp. xiv, 3, 103, 143, 363, 499, 595, 689, 706, etc, etc...

Smith, Paul Herbert (1976) [1931]. Letters of delegates to Congress, 1774-1789. Washington: Library of Congress. — Numerous occurrences of the term mercenaries can be viewed here.

The term foreign mercenaries was exclusively used -- it was and is the common term used throughout history. Almost all our sources here use the term mercenaries. It needs to be reflected in the info-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

George Wythe's appeal to foreign mercenaries

George Wythe's Draft Address to the Foreign Mercenaries

George Wythe's Draft Address to the Foreign Mercenaries May ? 1776 [1]

The delegates of the thirteen united colonies of America to the officers and soldiers of

It is with no small pleasure, when in this first address we ever made to you we must call you enemies, that we can affirm you to be unprovoked enemies. We have not invaded your country, slaughtered wounded or captivated your parents children or kinsfolk, burned plundered or desolated your towns and villages, wasted your farms and cottages, spoiled you of your goods, or annoyed your trade. On the contrary, all your countrymen who dwell among us, were received as friends, and treated as brethren, participating equally with our selves of all our rights, franchises and privileges. We have not aided ambitious princes and potentates in subjugating you. We should glory being instrumental in the deliverance of mankind from bondage and oppression. What then induced you to join in this quarrel with our foes, strangers to you, unconnected with you, and at so great a distance from both you and us? Do you think the cause you are engaged in just on your side? To decide that we might safely appeal to the judicious and impartial—but we have appealed to the righteous judge of all the earth, inspired with humble confidence and well-grounded hopes, that the lord of hosts will fight our battles, whilst we are vindicating that inheritance we own ourselves indebted to his bounty alone for. Were you compelled by your sovereigns to undertake the bloody work of butchering your unoffending fellow creatures? Disdain the inhuman office, disgraceful to the soldier. Did lust of conquest prompt you? The victory, unattainable by you if heaven was not against us, which we know of no good reason you have to expect, or we to dread, shall cost you more than the benefits derived from it will be equivalent to; since it will be disputed by those who are resolved inflexibly to live no longer than they can enjoy the liberty you are hired to rob them of, and who are conscious of a dignity of character, which a contempt of every danger threatening the loss of that blessing seldom fails to accompany. Were you tempted by the prospect of exchanging the land you left for happier regions,—for a land of plenty and abhorrent of despotism? We wish this may be your motive; because we have the means, and want not inclination, to gratify your desires, if they be not hostile, without loss to ourselves, perhaps with less expense, certainly with more honour and with more advantage to you than victory can promise. Numberless Germans and other foreigners settled in this country will testify this truth. To give you farther assurance of it, we have resolved, Mistake not this for an expedient suggested by fear. In military virtue we doubt not Americans will prove themselves to be second to none; their numbers exceed you and your confederates; in resources they now do or soon will abound. Neither suppose that we would seduce you to a treacherous defection. If you have been persuaded to believe, that it is your duty, or will be your interest to assist those who prepare, in vain we trust, to destroy us; go on; and, when you shall fall into our hands, and experience less severity of punishment than ruffians, and savages deserve, attribute it to that lenity, which is never separate from magnanimity. But if, exercising your own judgments, you have spirit enough to assert that freedom which all men are born to, associate yourselves with those who desire, and think they are able to secure it, with all the blessings of peace, to you and your posterity.

MS (DLC). In the hand of George Wythe.

1 Upon receiving copies of several treaties negotiated by George III with various German principalities for some 16,000 troops, Congress on May 21 appointed a committee to publish extracts of the treaties "and to prepare an address to the foreign mercenaries who are coming to invade America." The committee, consisting of John Adams, William Livingston, Richard Henry Lee, Jefferson, and Sherman, quickly distributed extracts of the treaties to various printers for publication, but no address to the foreign mercenaries was ever submitted to Congress for action.

George Wythe's Draft can also be viewed at archive.org

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional perspectives

The issue of mercenaries v auxiliaries has points of merit on both sides. Albert Faust, in his widely noted work, The German Element in the United States , explains that,
"The Hessians were the victims of the tyranny of their
rulers, who sold the lives and services of their subjects to
the highest bidder. The English government was at that
time the best customer. Large profits were realized by the
petty princes who were willing to sell mercenaries for the
war in the American colonies, as can be seen by examination
of the contracts between the parties on either side,
contracts which were not kept secret. An estimate of the
returns derived by several of the princes is as follows :"
(Not a complete list)
— Hesse-Cassel in 8 years £2,959,800
— Brunswick in 8 years 750,000
— Hesse-Hanau in 8 years 343,130
— Waldeck in 8 years 140,000
— Anspach-Bayreuth in 7 years 282,400
— Anhalt-Zerbst in 6 years 109,120 — Totaling more than seven million pounds sterling at that time.^[1]

The above passage well supports the idea of mercenaries, given the huge profits reaped by their 'employers'. However, Faust also covers the more human side of the Hessians and their involvements in Germany as well as on the American continent.

"The greatest of the German Princes did not allow his
subjects to be sold. Frederick the Great used his influence
against the sale of recruits in other German states and
refused to allow mercenaries who were intended for the
American service to pass through his domains. . . .
Frederick encouraged France in a war against England
for the defense of the colonies, and made promises to do all
in his power to prevent the purchase of mercenaries."^[2] . . .

"In view of the system of mercenary soldiery it is not
surprising to find that on many of the American battlefield
there were Germans (Hessians) opposing Germans colonists.. . .
As soldiers the Hessians behaved like veterans and
were not exultant in victory. Their officers, [Riedesel],
were all brave and capable men. . . . When in captivity
they proved amiable companions ; Thomas Jefferson, for
instance, enjoyed their music. Riedesel, who was captured
at Saratoga, and his wife, who wrote the delightful letters,
were especial favorites of their captors. The Germans
in the English service who were made prisoners at Yorktown
fraternized with the German Colonial regiments."^[3]

In a journal article written by L.H. Butterfield, 1950, Psychological Warfare in 1776, he covers how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin soon came to appreciate the situation the Hessians found themselves in and assumed they were likely to desert now that they were in America, where general living conditions and freedoms far exceeded those that existed in their previous state. Butterfield uses the terms mercenaries and auxiliaries interchangeably, but makes it clear that these were hired soldiers sent off to fight in a foreign war they had no stock in. Jefferson (the writer) and Franklin (the printer) had "handbills" printed up to disperse among the Hessians, but unfortunately relatively few of them made their way into Hessian hands until sometime later. A packet of such handbills, with a letter from Franklin, was also sent to General Gates with the hopes he might find a way to disseminate the handbills in the course of battle, a plan that Washington approved of and had wished was in place before the Battle of Long Island occurred, where some 8000 Hessians had fought. Though the handbill plan proved generally ineffective, it does reveal the human forces and attitudes at play. Before their arrival the Hessians, hired by what was considered a tyrannical king, were understandably considered as hired and merciless assassins, but in a matter of time the exceptions to their albeit well earned reputation became somewhat evident upon their arrival to America.^[4] By the end of the ARW, between 5000-6000 Hesssians had deserted and remained in America and Canada.^[5]

Using either of the contested terms by themselves would be somewhat misleading, given the complexity of the overall situation, which is why we should use both terms in the info-box and in the narrative, with brief explanatory statements, and footnotes used where appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

^ Faust, 1909, p. 349
^ Faust, 1909, p. 352
^ Faust, 1909, p. 353
^ Butterfield, 1950, pp. 238-239
^ Butterfield, 1950, p. 240

Faust, Albert Bernhardt (1909). The German element in the United States. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Co.

Butterfield, Lyman H. (June 1950). "Psychological Warfare in 1776: The Jefferson-Franklin Plan to Cause Hessian Desertions". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 94 (3). American Philosophical Society: 233–241. JSTOR 3143556.

Re: Mercenaries and Auxiliaries and a footnote for the Info-box

Since it's been demonstrated that the terms mercenaries and auxiliaries are both used by various historical figures, and by scholars, sometimes interchangeably, it should be footnoted in the info-box, so as to reflect both POVs. As it is, we have only one POV represented in the info-box, contrasted by multiple scholars who employ the term mercenaries. Below is a basic draft proposal for such a footnote.

Mercenaries / Auxiliaries^[a] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

CONCUR and incorporated into the following post to the Infobox: Infobox, British Belligerents, Combatants.

Germans by subsidy^[2]^[b]

[Collapsible list of German principalities with troops serving in America for George III]

Notes

^ Historians and others have referred to the Hessians as both mercenaries and auxiliaries, terms that are sometimes used interchangeably.^[1]
^ German regiments of infantry, cavalry and artillery from principalities in the Holy Roman Empire were contracted by George III with Treaties of Subsidy. Beginning in 1775 they served in America to put down the colonial rebellion there; the last regiments evacuated in 1782.^[3] Contemporaries, commentators and historians have referred to the Hessians and others as both mercenaries and auxiliaries, terms that are sometimes used interchangeably.^[4]

Citations

^ Atwood, 2000, pp. 1, 23
^ Zeller-Frederick
^ Davenport 1937, vol. IV, p. 118, Treaty of Subsidy between Britain and Hesse-Cassel
^ Atwood 2002, pp. 1, 23

Bibliography

Atwood, Rodney (2002). The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521526371.
Davenport, Frances; Paulin, Charles O. (1937). European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies. Vol. IV 1716-1815. Carnegie Institution of Washington. online at Haithi Trust
Zeller-Frederick, Andrew A. (18 April 2018). "The Hessians Who Escaped Washington's Trap at Trenton". Journal of the American Revolution. Bruce H. Franklin. Citing William M. Dwyer and Edward J. Lowell, The Hessians and the other German Auxiliaries n the Revolutionary War, 1970

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

TVH, the Davenport source, as I assume you know, is written in French. Can you relate the sourced item in question in English? In any case, too much weight was given to the idea of subsidy, another way of expressing the idea of auxiliaries, the only term that was visible in that part of the info-box, and mentioned again in the footnote, thus once again favoring only one pov. The Hessians were regarded as mercenaries by the Americans and much of Europe as soldiers hired out by a mercenary state, regardless of any deal, or treaty, between England and the German princes. Did the Americans recognize the treaty? Did King Frederick II, who didn't allow these hired soldiers to march through his territory, or France, recognize any treaty between England and the German princes? We still have more than 50 sources used in our Bibliography that use the term mercenaries, most of them exclusively. The correspondence between Washington, Jefferson, Wythe and Americans overall referred to the hired soldiers as mercenaries -- an idea that was not even hinted at in the note, or elsewhere. We can leave the note covering the idea of subsidy as it is, but in the visible part of the info-box subsidy needs to be changed to mercenaries/auxiliaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

'TOOBIG' critique answered 16 October 2020

@Hog Farm and Gwillhickers:

- The ARW now passes the Wikipedia:Summary style test for word count. Article prose size (text only)’ now shows 16,144 words, “readable prose size” at 101 kB. The general kB guideline does say, ‘100 kB’, subject to “readability and technical issues”. However, it also notes for estimating purposes, “A page of about 50 kB of readable prose, roughly corresponds to 10,000 words, right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.”

- 1. (-7916 B) Move ‘American strategy, American logistics’ to Talk:Continental Army. Copyedit here. -- 2. (-4976 B) Move ‘British strategy, British logistics’ to Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War. Copyedit here -- 3. (-6662 B) Remove political detail off-topic for military strategy and campaigning in ‘Background, Taxation and legislation’ to Talk:American Revolution , copyedit here -- 4. (-913 B) Trim; Move detailed material to Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War, copyedit here -- 5. (-360 B) Trim ‘British strategy, Hessians’: some copyedit, move some supplementary detail to Notes. Copyedit here -- 6. (-5 B) trim 'North Ministry collapses' & 'Treaty of Paris': align images to text; trim 'North Ministry collapses' & 'Treaty of Paris'. copyedit here -- 7. (+6 B) ‘Global war and diplomacy, Peace of Paris, reduce detailed international mission exchanges to a Note. Copyedit here.

- The ARW “Page size, by word count four-fifths (4/5) of the upper limit. If the upper limit is to be 100 kB of 20,000 words (16144 ARW ÷ 20000 word limit = .81). -- The three-day total kB reduction = 20,832 Bytes by the ARW article ‘Revision history’.

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Project critiques met at ‘Military history’

Re: B-status 'Assessment Request' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and an 8-week review, 18 August to 16 October 2020 by multiple editors. All expressed reservations have now been met:

- (1) wp:TOOBIG,

Done: ARW now passes the Wikipedia:Summary style test for word count, under 20,000 words, nearly kB at 101kB for 100kB limit, brevity ideal 10,000 for ‘average concentration span of 40-50 minutes encompasses .

- (2) "Most footnotes I've ever seen",

Done in ten categories for 543 footnotes: (a) all HarvRef footnotes and references with extended descriptions at the citation 'quote=' code; (b) historical documents cited as {{cite archive}} references to online archives; (c) footnote authors found; (d) footnote books & articles found; (e) reference url links found, repaired; (f) gobbledygook footnotes removed; (g) self-published sources removed & RS found; (h) passages unchallenged for 30 days use one footnote with oldest removed; (i) orphaned references moved to 'Further reading', grew 8 to 50+; (j) Bibliography alphabetized.

- (3) All copyedit suggestions from every contributing Reviewer at the Project page and at the Talk page for article-narrative are implemented,

Done.

- (4) wp:error @ Infobox critique

Not done: The Anglo-American insurrection-rebellion was thought to be a great power war by a mistaken editor, therefore the reviewer critique suggested ARW Infobox should match War of the Austrian Succession usage restricted to “Belligerents” with formal declarations of war by nation-states only. STIPULATED, the Infobox should include five nation-state belligerents undertaking formal war: Britain and aspiring Congress allied with France, along with co-belligerents Dutch Republic and Bourbon Spain at war with Britain, but not declared to wage war until Britain granted American independence.

- On consulting two authoritative references, the ARW cannot be classified as a great power conflict, so its Infobox should not follow their article Infobox conventions. A scholarly reference worldwide in the English language can be had at Encyclopedia Britannica, “American Revolution: “an insurrection” among British subjects. The internationally accessed Dictionary.com by Random House for the general reader in the English language worldwide with 4 million subscribers, shows American Revolution as a “war between Great Britain and its American colonies”. The mistaken Reviewer counter-claimed authority for himself as the self-pronounced author of an unsourced "think tank" treatise on the subject, but that is unpersuasive. An anonymous uncited reference by a lone editor assertion does not overthrow Britannica as a wp:reliable source.

- Unanswered for two months at the Military history Project page, these two general reference authorities confirm that the ARW is more nearly comparable to the Spanish Civil War, where the Infobox at Wikipedia includes “Combatants”. ‘Combatants’ in the ARW properly includes American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, and British-side "Hessians".

- There is no further reason to allow obstruction to an article B-class rating, as all legitimate objections are met following a two-month deliberation. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, one further thing I see - The images cause a few layout issues, especially where it was trimmed. If there's substantial extra space at the end of a section that has to be added to accommodate an image, then there's one two many images. Second, I just noticed that the paragraph ending with "Theoretically, Britain had the advantage; however, many factors inhibited raising a large army for a war that was unpopular at home." in the British strategy section lacks one citation at the end. I'd say this is very close to B-class. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Citations are provided at the end of paragraphs in 'British strategy'; challenged unsourced sentence "Theoretically, Britain..." is removed. Substantial spaces below an article section are reduced or eliminated for 'Background', 'Taxation and legislation', 'Colonial response', 'British northern strategy fails', 'Continental Army', 'Continental Navy', 'France', 'British strategy', and 'British Army'.

Done, with some additional narrative copy edit, now reduced to 16,095 words. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

As of this morning, the "Prose size (text only)" is 16,014 words with a reported 100kB in text. “Readable prose size" after a more thorough-going copy-edit for the first two sections, Introduction and Background. More to follow. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

American soldiers

The article should provide some description of the soldiers. According to an article in Smithsonian Magazine, "Myths of the American Revolution",in 1775-76, the army represented a cross section of the free male population. But afterwards the typical soldier was "young, single, propertyless, poor and in many cases an outright pauper." In some states, up to 25% were impoverished recent immigrants. While black soldiers, who made up 5% of the army, are mentioned, there's no mention that they were offered freedom to enlist. Also omitted is the use of conscription. No one knows how many of the U.S. soldiers were forced to fight. There's no mention either of compensation, which was low if paid at all. Or the lack of adequate food and clothing in many cases. Pay differentials between volunteers and draftees probably led to many men volunteering before they were drafted. TFD (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Valuable contribution for discussion.

(1) CONCUR, more needs to be fleshed out for the American free and enslaved blacks fighting for the Patriot cause; at least "most" were Patriots, not Loyalists. Both free blacks and enslaved servicemen received both Congressional and state (ex: Virginia) land grants, and later some very few received Congressional Revolutionary War pensions. But their story is an important one to demonstrate that black America, free and enslaved, has always been "America", from the nation's inception. Aside: Black-American history cannot be fairly encapsulated in a high school chapter "slavery", set fifty years after the American Revolution, limited to the Deep South, featuring plantation field hands harvesting cotton by moonlight (yes, those 85% blacks-in-America 1860, "good-enough" for Black History 1970s break-through).

- (2) Existing: the article addresses poor pay and food at American Revolutionary War#Stalemate in the North, "whole regiments mutinied"; not-ARW-detail = over half of the mutinying Pennsylvania Line Regiment were allowed to go home as their terms of enlistment had expired; some later returned to service after restoring their family farms for a season.

- (3) Not-ARW-detail: Existing narrative on soldier descriptions and unit composition have generally been moved from here to Talk:Continental Army and Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War.

- But I also have an interest in the social history of "impoverished recent immigrants", both (a) those conscripted by their mercenary German princes "back home", then deserters who were obliged to serve as Continentals "for the duration" before accessing their Congressional farmland grants on the frontier, and (b) those impoverished immigrants making free transit, amounting to the largest numbers of German settlements in the middle colonies and Chesapeake Bay; largest states PA, NY, VA.

- Massachusetts and Virginia supplied the largest state contingents in the Continental Army; Virginia had by far the largest population, many of the "propertyless impoverished" in New England were fishing crew, merchant sailors, and day-laborers on the docks, all out of work due to the British blockade of Boston. Most of those who joined the Continental Army from New England, Massachusetts, or Boston were not radicalized Sons of Liberty from 1775.

- (4) Historical context: By British tradition and colonial law, all states required military service of men 16-60. Weekly drill on the courthouse commons was required of all, but as a matter of practice, it was regularly enforced on the frontier, and often lax in port cities. The poor were furnished muskets, ball and powder from the colonial Assembly-funded "powder houses" both in the capitals, and also in more remote locations, such as that at Concord MA. The first "conscription" used on the North American continent takes place by the Confederacy. Aside: see Confederate States of America#Conscription; Davis levied 100,000 for pre-emptive "defense" prior to hostilities, and Lincoln replied with state requests for 75,000 to defend "federal property"; later US Congress had state draft quotas, Davis national government conscripted directly by Army agents.

- I think there is a passage at American Revolution that applies here for black Patriots in Continental service. Submitted for discussion - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Hale

@TheVirginiaHistorian: — Nathan Hale's involvements gives us insight into Washington's earnest intelligence gathering efforts in dealing with the British before and during their occupation of New York. We don't want to turn the narrative into a verbal outline of major events (not that you are overall) without points of context for the sake of page length. Hale is a very famous figure, a celebrated icon of the ARW, and deserves a brief mention in this article, and because a link to the Nathan Hale article in this high traffic article will bring many more readers to that article. If there are no pressing concerns, I'd like to restore the couple of sentences that outline Hale's involvement with Washington in his dealings with the advancing and occupying British in New York. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Right you are. Following your suggestion, (1) I read into our Baker source for another footnote to reinforce the Hale Note. (2) Once buried chronologically in Washington's withdrawal across the Hudson River, I've moved the Note on Nathan Hale up next to the lead paragraph in 'British New York counter-offensive'.

Now in the section lead paragraph we have three sentences on Washington establishing a professionalized intelligence unit at Knowlton's Rangers. And immediately adjacent, the Hale Note adds an additional five sentences immediately adjacent for those who want more detail on the topic.

With a click footnotes are Further Reading, our sourcing is now clustered together for ready access to Johnston 1897, Burke 1975, and Baker 2014 in that first-paragraph-and-Note, a pretty fair reading list. I hope that "answers the mail" from your post.

The old-classroom-teacher in me would make a partner-request: could you scan the article Notes for more three-fer combinations == military narrative with * strategic-operational context, * tactical detail Note, * footnotes-reading-list == so deliberate editorial policy here can be: create focused "teachable moments" for the otherwise casual reader. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that will work. However, I added Hale's name w/link, at the end of the paragraph, right before the cite and the footnote, just to have his name in the main text and bring more readers to the Hale article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Boston Massacre

The intro to the article reads:

"The Stamp Act and Townshend Acts provoked colonial opposition and unrest, leading to the 1770 Boston Massacre and 1773 Boston Tea Party."

This suggests that the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party were both actions of disgruntled colonists. In fact, the Boston massacre was perpetrated by British soldiers. This might not be clear to someone who has not studies American history. Whether or not the soldiers were acting in self defense could be debated but, the fact remains that colonists died and soldiers did not. I propose that the wording of this sentence be changed to something cleared. The nuances of phrasing are beyond me but "provoking the 1770 Boston Massacre and leading to 1773 Boston Tea Party" or even "leading to the 1770 Boston Massacre by the British and the 1773 Boston Tea Party by the Colonists." would be appropriate. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro overview: The new taxes provoked colonial unrest. - The Boston townspeople were additionally unhappy with occupying soldiers quartered in their homes involuntarily.

The Boston crowd accosted the British sentry, the sentry did not call out a squad to enter Boston homes. You misremember who perpetrated what. John Adams successfully defended, and a Boston jury acquitted the officer present and all enlisted of murder charges. But the two or three soldiers who actually fired their muskets into the crowd were convicted, not of murder, but of manslaughter.

The fact remains that there was no "massacre" at Boston as the radical-Patriot Sons of Liberty purported in their propaganda cartoon by silversmith Paul Revere. That implies both large numbers and premeditated intent, neither of which was present as determined by the Boston jury of townsmen, and since then, the preponderance of scholarship from reliable sources. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Am not sure where the line in the sand is drawn in terms of numbers of deaths and wounded in a massacre. Eleven people were killed and wounded. Even a few people can be massacred, regardless of the charges brought against the offenders. It doesn't surprise me that the offenders were charged with manslaughter, rather than murder. A charge of murder would only serve to justify or give credence to the patriot outrage and no doubt would have severely diminished British troop morale. In any case, the term Boston Massacre was hidden in a piped link, so it has been placed in the main text, preceded with the adjective resulting, a neutral term in most cases. I would stay clear of the term propaganda, as this is a highly opinionated term and not at all neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a good solution to me. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography notice

Prior to my last edits the 'Citation Bot' went through the Bibliography and removed all the Amazon url addresses without adding any substitutes. I have replaced them with google url addresses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion

Thanks. I meant to check with the author to determine the point of the deletions: Is the intent to replace Amazon url's with commercial (a) Google url's, (b) Publisher url's, or with free-access (c) Hathi Trust, Internet Archive, or free Google url's? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of bots out there that attempt to make changes of this sort. i.e.There's one that comes along and replaces google url's with those from archive.org. On two occasions I had to request that the bot user leave the article involved alone, which was respected. Now we have this latest bot that removes Amazon url address and doesn't replace them with anything, so it's a bit pointless trying to determine what the overall intent is. Having said that, I prefer Google url's over those from Amazon because in most cases you can do a partial, or sometimes full search, which can't be done with an Amazon source listing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The point and intent of the editorial policy here is to offer the reader immediate access to 'Further reading' at the time of their reading a footnote and its sourcing. Any purchase that might follow is a tangential and secondary matter, and in each case, the isbn allows for a ready access to an online link to "available at libraries near you", and the the book can be purchased directly from the publisher for the most part, as most references in this article are printed at a university press.- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the one bot changing google addresses to archive.org addresses was with the idea that google offers books for sale, archive.org does not. Since then archive.org has a 'buy book' link to many of their selections. In any case, Wikipedia is not making any money, regardless of where a given book may be purchased, so I never really understood the effort to change url addresses on that note in the first place. Just a reminder, this article has a very large Bibliography, and now the Further reading section rivals it in size. Since there is a Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War, not to mention a Bibliography of George Washington and Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson, perhaps we might want to move some of the book listings in Further reading to one or more of the other Bibliographies if they're not already there. No doubt many are. As we know, any book that is used in a citation belongs in the Bibliography, those books that are not used in the citation belong in Further reading and ultimately one of the other Bibliographies.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO, only major notable works belong in Further reading. As it is there are many dozens listed. Something to consider. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion 2

Agreed. The 'Further reading' grew from 8 to over 50 as I sorted the 550+ footnotes and found "orphaned" sources without a footnote. I just parked the references into 'Further reading' as a temporary-holding measure.

2. Our Bot author was kind enough to suggest applying  to avoid any future inconvenience here at ARW, while complimenting the sourcing here. So I've added the line of code both at 'References' and at 'Further reading'. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of paring down the "Further reading' on this page to the classics, but also current, say restrict the list to sources used in the current year at a History Department accredited by the Veterans Administration. That's just a-for-instance, to set out a generally acceptable standard for the ARW 'Further reading' list, were a transfer be challenged on grounds of what an RS may be in the scholarly field at this time, for the international general reader of Wikipedia. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Article size

Just an update: Currently the Readable Prose size of this article is 98K (15537 words). For large, high traffic, and major subject articles, from my experience, 100K is generally the acceptable limit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be good on that openly stated project critique. I did post the new length at our review request after your good trim of my extraneous colonial militia history contribution, and a couple days before we began the systematic line edit. Still no project response, no action to my updates, to my knowledge.

-On sorting through the article with Tenryuu, we should go to the Editorial Team for an upgrade to article B-status from them, then go to Project United States History for a Good Article Review so we can get an actionable checklist for further article improvement.

- It may be that leaving the "Start-status" from Military history Project in place might not make a difference one way or another. The goal for the article should be to be well written and well sourced. I do not think we can weigh in or make corrective action for unstated reservations, from whatever quarter. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Just a reminder to all, that article size guidelines are just that -- guidelines. In the top banner to all guidelines pages it says that guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emphasis added) The American Revolutionary War article is a major subject and an exceptional article, covering many topics, and as such, room is needed to cover the (very) many topics comprehensively. We should not require the readers to jump to a dozen different articles just to get a comprehensive idea of the subject. Main articles and sister articles should have a healthy amount of contextual overlap. When we make edits, contributions, we should always edit the article as if we were aiming for Featured Article status, which mandates that the narrative should be comprehensive and should present the given topics in context. To this end, room is needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Slavery

@A D Monroe III: — Re: your last edit here. Yes, the American Revolution did not actually end slavery, but rather put the idea in motion, which led to its abolition. It's sort of ironic that slave owners like Washington, Jefferson, etc, were on the front lines pushing for abolition. In his last days, Washington was providing for more than 30 slaves, mostly elderly and children, he had no profitable use for. In his will, with prompting from men like Hamilton, Lafayette, Paine, and others, not only did Washington free them, he provided funds for the education of those children. The untold story; not exclusive to Washington, swept under the rug by major media and activist types. Unfortunately it took a major civil war, with aprox half a million lives lost, to finally effect actual abolition. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Unused sources

There are several Avalon Project sources listed in the Bibliography but apparently are not being used/linked to any citations. One of these source listings even has a |ref=yale'mga parameter which doesn't occur in the citation mark-up. If anyone knows more about these sources and can show they are used in the citations we can keep them. If not, they should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Concur. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed excess text in infobox

In addition to template-structuring the lists in the infobox for accessibility reasons (see MOS:PLIST), I removed the following text, except for casualty figures and sources, because its formatting was inconsistent with the rest of the infobox and that much text and extensive explanation is inappropriate for an infobox:

Spain overseas:
From 1779, Spain allied with France in its war against Britain in the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779); it made a separate peace with Britain at the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783). Spain gained East Florida, West Florida and Minorca. Participation in the Anglo-French War (1779–83) cost the Spanish Empire 5,000 dead total globally,^[1]
371 in British West Florida,^[2]
and 4,000 dead in British prison ships.^[3]
Globally, it lost 8 ships-of-the-line, and 11 frigates.^[4]

Hairy Dude (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

^ White 2010, "Essay"
^ Otfinoski 2008, p. 16
^ Archuleta 2006, p. 69
^ Clodfelter 2017, p 134

Agree. Much verbiage has been overlaid to qualify extraneous figures imposed into ARW Infobox that are not germane to the article's stated topic. Despite considerable discussion here at ARW Talk exploring variable Euro historiographies, the 'gold standard' scholarly reference for mainstream usage in the English language is the Encyclopedia Britannica, "American Revolution": "American Revolution, also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence [...]"

To stay within the British English lexicon for this discussion, the Oxford Learners' Dictionaries online defines "insurrection" as "(against somebody/something) a situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence." It's synonym is "uprising" or "rebellion", "an attempt by some of the people in a country to change their government, using violence."

Let's address all the 'global' figures in the Infobox, removing them all as they do not directly relate to the topic at hand, a 'revolution' (Am.), 'rebellion' or 'civil war' (Brit.), between British subjects over the Parliament's imperial authority over British colonies and then, for or against the independence of the 'rebel' (Brit.) or 'Continental' (Am.) Congress. Their good-source references can be placed into the article 'Further reading' section for the general international readers interested in tangentially related military engagements made against Britain from among foreign kings in international wars that were not sponsored by Congress in its 'uprising', or 'insurrection', or constitutional 'revolution' to replace its monarch with a republic. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. here and here. Also, the previously omitted line item, 'American Indians', is added to both columns --- as directly engaged for and against the Encyclopedia Britiannica's "insurrection" in North America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Appointment of George Washington

The second reference to George Washington states that he was appointed to create the Continental Army during the Second Congressional Congress however the third reference, in the title for an image states that he was made Commander-in-Chief in the First Congressional Congress. Unless there’s some subtlety here that I’m unaware of, this image title is incorrect isn’t it?

Kind regards

Phil Carlyle CarlylePL (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Washington was appointed Commander-in-Chief at the Second Continental Congress. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Split territory

I'm not a regular here, so perhaps you've already discussed this; but the article is over 100kb of readable prose; is anyone considering summarizing or condensing some existing sections, and farming some content out to existing (or new) child articles? Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the article is at 98k of readable prose, but the suggestion is not completely unreasonable. While we should keep the prose at or near 100k, this number, however, should not be the major consideration in determining summary size. Page size is a guideline, it's not a rigid policy, and exceptions are allowed for exceptional articles. WP: Article size — Content, especially summary, well sourced and non-tangential information, should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit focus - Legacy section

@Gwillhickers and The Four Deuces:

introduction - focus on 'military actions primarily'

The article narrative seems to be OFF TOPIC at the existing #Legacy section as written. The announced scope of this article is, "This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution." There are military-related elements that refer to the American example of success-at-arms in rebellion against a monarchy that inspired other 18th century revolutions. That seems appropriate to me. But I wonder about wandering into the fields of intellectual and legal history to assert conclusions about ideology and constitutions that have not previously been addressed in the body of the article --- just as the introduction cannot feature conclusions about topics not found within the article narrative.

The editorial danger in a loss-of-focus is that suddenly the article will balloon into related, extended, removed interests that can best be handled with a wikipedia article link. See the six-month discussion here, Whether ALL warfare conducted on Britain EVERYWHERE by great powers in the late 1700s was (a) part of the Second Hundred Years' War, or (b) connected to the American [constitutional] Revolutionary War for American Independence, regardless of the participants in the engagements, their commanders' correspondence, or military outcomes had anything to do with (i) the (Brit.) insurrection between British subjects, for or against colonial independence, (ii) North American territory ceded to the United States, or (iii) overthrowing a monarchy and establishing a republic.

ON TOPIC, I look forward to writing a very different 'Legacy' section focused on American Revolutionary War veterans who settled in the new American republic, and those who stayed there. So far, I am looking at four groups: Continental veterans with land grants, state militia veterans with land grants, German Auxiliaries returning to settle with families, and "Soft Tories" who accepted the republican regime. Some prospered, such as the Virginian Eastern Shore merchant who furnished British forces with supplies the entire duration, and was affirmed by his neighbors in affidavits that he never took up arms against Virginia or the United States. He subsequently became a delegate to the Virginia Ratification Convention for the US Constitution.

Lets consider each element in turn, please make comments for each one within the editable space so the threads remain focused and coherent:

discussion aged 5-days at 26 Nov, see ‘Overall results’ below

Element #1

The American Revolution established the United States with its numerous civil liberties and set an example to overthrow both monarchy and colonial governments. The United States has the world’s oldest written constitution, and the constitutions of other free countries often bear a striking resemblance to the US Constitution – often word-for-word in places. It inspired the French, Haitian, Latin American Revolutions, and others into the modern era.[539 - Bailyn, 2007, pp. 35, 134-49. To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders].

On the military topic: The American Revolution established the United States strike mirror of British: ~~with its numerous civil liberties~~ and set an example to overthrow government by monarchy and imperial colonialism. The new republic spanned a large territory, justified to the world by Enlightenment ideals with widespread political participation. That participation was further expanded by land grants made to Continental and militia veterans. strike law history: The United States has the world’s oldest written constitution, and the constitutions of other free countries often bear a striking resemblance to the US Constitution – often word-for-word in places. The French, Haitian, Latin American Revolutions were inspired in part by the American Revolution, as were others into the modern era.' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The revolution did not establish civil liberties but protected them. Habeas corpus for example derived from common law and had been confirmed by in the Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1689). That these rights already existed but had been infringed by the British government are shown by the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (1789). TFD (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Well said.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Element #2

The American Revolution also initiated changes to western, then global society.[542 - Morgan, 2012 [1956] , pp. 96-7. The Birth of the Republic: 1763–1789 (4th ed)]. Feudal life was determined by one's birth. State law and the US Constitution abolished all legalized social hierarchy, except for slavery, which fit into the continuing hierarchy.[543 - Bailyn, 2007, pp. 221-4. To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders.]

Drop social history unrelated to either ARW military recruitment or ARW military legacy: The American Revolution also initiated changes to western, then global society. Feudal life was determined by one's birth. State law and the US Constitution abolished all legalized social hierarchy, except for slavery, which fit into the continuing hierarchy.

- In British colonial North American, only the Tidewater and Caribbean were distinctively feudal in any substantial way. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The wording implies that the colonies had a feudal system, which is incorrect. The U.S. did not so much abolish social hierarchy but prevent its establishment. The Emoluments Clause for example prohibits the U.S. from issuing titles but does not abolish existing ones. But no titles in the colonies had any privileges attached to them. TFD (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The only related exception I can recall is John Randolph, who was the only colonial Virginian knighted. He remained a Loyalist and migrated "home" to Britain, while son Peyton Randolph became a Patriot and the president of the First Continental Congress. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Element #3

After the revolution, slavery, which was widely considered contrary to the principles of liberty, became a serious social and political issue. For example, The Society of Friends in America [df] Also known as The Religious Society of Friends] in 1790 petitioned Congress to abolish slavery.[544] Middlekauff, 2007, [1982], p. 557. Middlekauff, Robert (2007) [1982]. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789.] while the number of abolition movements greatly increased.[545 - Kaminski, 1995, p.256. A Necessary Evil?: Slavery and the Debate Over the Constitution.]

Strike narrow reference to non-participant Quakers unrelated to ARW military legacy: After the revolution, slavery, which was widely considered contrary to the principles of liberty, became a serious social and political issue. For example, The Society of Friends in America[df] in 1790 petitioned Congress to abolish slavery, while the number of abolition movements greatly increased.

Alternate 2 paragraphs: The Enlightenment reasoning to abolish slavery was widespread among Revolutionary war veterans. They had seen black troops perform well under fire both in state militias and in Continental Line regiments. The black Rhode Island regiment on Washington's left flank at Monmouth famously not only turned back a British bayonet charge for the first time by Americans, but then counter-charged with a bayonet attack of their own. As many as twenty-percent of the Northern Continental Line regiments were free blacks.

- At the close of the war, Revolutionary officers North and South, supported freedom and land grants to all surviving black veterans, regardless of their previous condition of servitude. Enlisted veterans especially in the South and west of the Tidewater, joined Methodist and Baptist religious sects that were racially integrated, admitting both free black and enslaved membership.

-- footnoting to follow. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We should keep coverage about the idea of slavery becoming a serious social and political issue after the war. Given its weight, it seems well placed in the Aftermath section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Here, I tried to refocus the topic to relate it to the 'military legacy' of the ARW, rather than emphasize the otherwise important role of non-participant Quakers in American abolitionism, as they were not influenced by military service to advance in their anti-slavery views. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

By definition, slavery is contrary to liberty, but then so is the imprisonment of suspected and convicted criminals and prisoners of war. Slavery was considered by Locke and Coke as a legal and justified curtailment of liberty. That view was changing in Britain and America during the late 17th century and the was finally rejected with the British Anti-Slavery Act and the U.S. 14th Amendment. TFD (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Is that an agreement to my proposed wording to stay focused on the ARW military legacy? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Element #4

Both state legislatures and individuals took actions to free slaves. By 1804, all the northern states had soon passed laws outlawing slavery.[546 - Wood, 1992, pp. 3-8, 186-7. Wood, Gordon S. (1992). The Radicalism of the American Revolution.] Benjamin Franklin and James Madison each helped found manumission societies. George Washington, was able to personally free his slaves and did so through his will without an Act of Assembly. Promoted by President Thomas Jefferson, the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves went into effect in 1808.[547 - Wood, 2017, pp. 19, 132, 348, 416. Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.]

Alternate: Revolutionary veterans made up majorities in the state legislatures that took actions to free slaves. By 1804, all the northern states had soon passed laws outlawing slavery. drop reference to non-veterans as 'Legacy' of the military aspects of the ARW. ~~Benjamin Franklin and James Madison~~ John Marshall helped found manumission a society. George Washington, personally manumitted his slaves and did so through his will without an Act of Assembly. Veteran majorities in both House and Senate passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves went into effect in 1808.

-- Detailed footnoting to follow. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The wording incorrectly implies that ending slavery was one of the objectives of the revolution. But slavery had been established by the colonists and they could end it if they chose. In fact Upper Canada passed its Anti-Slavery Act as its first law after the establishment of the colony in 1791. Ironically, the colonial legislature rejected the royal governor's request for an immediate end to slavery. TFD (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I do NOT want to imply "that ending slavery was one of the objectives of the revolution". Congress unanimously declared war aims: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi with navigation to the Gulf, and Newfoundland banks fishing with curing rights ... but without ending slavery.

- I mean only to convey the 'Aftermath - Legacy' of the veteran's post-revolutionary ideals as expressed in the weekly newspapers and pamphlets that they read as soldiers. Thomas Paine, who later wintered at Valley Forge with Washington, published 1775 anti-slavery editorials in the Pennsylvania Journal, the most widely read in the British North American colonies. Those Revolutionary ideals included an anti-slavery disposition that influenced the post-war behaviors of the veterans as property owners, voters and elected officials, especially in Northern states with a substantial majority of the American white male population 1781-1801.

- This held true in the United States down to Jefferson's inauguration, the date I propose to limit the chronological horizon of the 'Aftermath - Legacy'. At that point, most Revolutionary War vets are still alive. --- Note: Thirty years later in 1830, they are mostly dead by the onset of King Cotton newly expanding the numbers enslaved in the US. The 'Aftermath - Legacy' of the ARW should not include the repercussions of a cotton uninvented at that time. IMHO, because that would be anachronism bad history. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

There doesn't seem to be any misguided or erroneous statements in the various Elements you've outlined, all of which seem well sourced. What say you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Not "misguided or erroneous statements" so much, as not apropos or germane to the 'Legacy' of the military aspects of the ARW. See my proposed alternative elements above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is the 'war' article, but the Aftermath section, like the Prelude to revolution section, should be somewhat complete, on a summary level of course, as it was the "military aspects" and the ARW victory that brought the various issues to the fore. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Okay, I'll relent, somewhat. How about we limit the "Aftermath-Legacy" section to a chronological horizon limited to 15 March 1801, on or about the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson? My concern is to avoid any "triumphant" historiography in the eyes of the Euros, or any Loaded language that could be read as wp:puffery by visiting editors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The establishment of a modern republic with a written constitution based on liberal principles was a major achievement and an example copied by other nations. The 1789 Bill of Rights was copied eventually by most other countries. So was winning independence from a colonial power. But it is inaccurate to portray colonial America as a feudal state ruled by an absolute monarch. TFD (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The Four Deuces, you just recapped the argument that so eloquently laid out by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania in his "Letters from a Farmer" published in weekly Philadelphia newspapers in 1767 and 1768, "it is inaccurate to portray colonial America as a feudal state ruled by an absolute monarch". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion on colonial slavery in British North America

- I consider that a fair assessment, with colonial British North American Tidewater and Caribbean as the only imperfect exceptions. They were more nearly "feudal" than the other regions under Briton rule. Otherwise, everywhere, you are correct, Britain and Britons were "the freest nation on earth", by their many protected rights and in their relatively light governance. That was so, but for the colonial practice exempting 'Rights of Englishmen" from those of African descent.

- In Virginia, that became the established regime after 1668, even once those enslaved had converted to Christianity. In the last years of the 1600s, Tidewater planters made the issue of hereditary slavery less fraught while they subverted the precedents of English law by taking Africans by force exclusively from among those who were Muslims and animists from the Gambia River Basin rather than previously, from among the Roman Catholic populations in the Congo, who had gained diplomatic protection of the Pope against Portuguese slave traders. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think many people see modern slavery as a relic of feudalism, but it was actually part of early capitalism. In any case, it wasn't an institution imported from or imposed by England but instituted by the colonists, although writers such as Locke and Coke had provided a common law justification for it. As you say, they had to be heathens or infidels captured in a just war. As such, they never came under the king's protection, hence they had no legal rights. TFD (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Slaves were sold by African tribal chiefs, e.g. by the Ashanti Empire, to the slavers who brought them to the new world. The first slaves were taken to Brazil and Cuba and were literally worked to death in the sugar fields - most lived no longer than seven years as slaves. Eventually slaves were brought to North America, and worked the plantations that were chartered by the king, and largely lived to an old age. The slave population in North America soon produced children at the same rate the colonists were reproducing, which can only occur under generally healthy conditions, as pregnant women likely will miscarry if they are not provided with adeqate food, clothing and shelter and are subjected to high stress and hopelessness on an every day basis. The ships that brought slaves to the new world were largely owned by the king. To say that the colonists, the greater bulk of whom did not own slaves, "instituted" slavery is a rather sloppy estimation, esp since much of the profits made via slavery (i.e.tobacco, wheat, eventually cotton, etc,) went back to England, so we need to be careful how that topic is worded, if at all, in this 'war' article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant to my statement that slavery was not imported from England or imposed by it, but by the colonists. The king didn't by the way own most of the slave ships. The king's brother, the future James II, invested 12,000 pounds sterling in a slave-trading company and was given a figurehead appointment as governor. And this was decades after slavery had been introduced into America. TFD (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's understood that the slaves didn't come from England, but it was most certainly behind their subjugation. Or are you now suggesting that the colonists went to Africa and had them shipped back to North America on their own? Africa has a long history of slavery and selling slaves, and the British were their biggest customers in the 17th and 18th centuries. You can argue whether the King owned 'most' or 'some' of the slaver ships, but the fact remains it was the wealthy British, often chartered by the king, who brought slaves to the colonies, which were largely owned by the wealthy British privy class and put to work on plantations which in turn shipped much of the profits back to England. The King was roundly criticized by the colonists, esp by Jefferson, the Quakers and others, for this practice. This activity continued right up until the Civil War, where the British were supplying the Confederacy with military ordinance for the much needed cotton to run their enormous textile industry. To think the King wasn't profiting big time from this advent would be yet another example of naivety. Again, if this advent is to be mentioned in the Aftermath section, which, btw, I don't think should be, it needs to be done so honestly. See also: Slavery in Africa. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No the colonists did not supply the slaves, but they bought them, used them and sometimes sold them on. Or are you saying there was a British privileged class in America that owned slaves or profited from them, and later departed as loyalists, separate from the true Americans who overthrew British rule? TFD (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems I've already explained what I meant, and yes, that's largely true. Slaves were mostly owned by a privileged class, esp loyalists, who were largely concentrated in the south, where, as you know, those states refused to outlaw slavery. Once again, the greater bulk of colonists did not own slaves. Slaves were expensive. A slave owner also had to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, tools to work with, and other household items, if he expected a slave to live halfway comfortably and perform adequately. Most of the slaves worked on the huge plantations, that, again were often chartered by the king, esp in the 17th and 18th centuries, who in return reaped much of the profits, goods, produced by slavery. England profited just as much as the various slave owners did, perhaps more, as no doubt the king and other wealthy individuals chartered or invested in multiple plantations. Once again, this activity occurred right up until the Civil War, as the king was supplying the Confederacy with arms and other supplies in exchange for cotton. In fact, England's economy largely depended on cotton, so much so, that they built special light weight steam ships that could outrun the Union ships on blockade patrol. They would arrive with supplies and leave with cotton, and other goods. If we're going to refer to the colonists in such an obtuse and ambiguous manner, we should qualify any such statement(s) clearly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

[1] Miller, 1959. p. 477

[2] * Axelrod - 2013. Mercenaries: A Guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies
Boatner, 1974. German Mercenaries" in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, p. 426

Ingrao, 2003. The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform -- with other quotes and reference.

See also: Schmidt, 1958: Journal: THE HESSIAN MERCENARIES: THE CAREER OF A POLITICAL CLICHÉ, pp. 207-212
Schmidt covers how the Hessian mercenaries were viewed in much of Germany. King Frederick II of Prussia, who scorned the Hesse-Cassell mercenary state, issued an order forbidding the transit through Prussian territory of all mercenaries hired for the American War.(pp.208-209)

[3] Boatner, 1974. German Mercenaries" in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, p. 426

[4] Ingrao, 2003. The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform -- with other quotes and reference.

[5] See also: Schmidt, 1958: Journal: THE HESSIAN MERCENARIES: THE CAREER OF A POLITICAL CLICHÉ, pp. 207-212
Schmidt covers how the Hessian mercenaries were viewed in much of Germany. King Frederick II of Prussia, who scorned the Hesse-Cassell mercenary state, issued an order forbidding the transit through Prussian territory of all mercenaries hired for the American War.(pp.208-209)

[3] Lowell, p. 36

[4] Fredriksen, 2006. p. 348

[5] Schmidt, 1958, pp. 208-209

[6] Schmidt, 1958, p. 208

[7] Fetter, 1980, p. 509

[8] Schmidt, 1958, p. 207

[9] Faust, 1909, p. 349

[10] Faust, 1909, p. 352

[11] Faust, 1909, p. 353

[12] Butterfield, 1950, pp. 238-239

[13] Butterfield, 1950, p. 240

[15] Historians and others have referred to the Hessians as both mercenaries and auxiliaries, terms that are sometimes used interchangeably.^[1]

[19] German regiments of infantry, cavalry and artillery from principalities in the Holy Roman Empire were contracted by George III with Treaties of Subsidy. Beginning in 1775 they served in America to put down the colonial rebellion there; the last regiments evacuated in 1782.^[3] Contemporaries, commentators and historians have referred to the Hessians and others as both mercenaries and auxiliaries, terms that are sometimes used interchangeably.^[4]

[14] Atwood, 2000, pp. 1, 23

[16] Zeller-Frederick

[17] Davenport 1937, vol. IV, p. 118, Treaty of Subsidy between Britain and Hesse-Cassel

[18] Atwood 2002, pp. 1, 23

[20] White 2010, "Essay"

[21] Otfinoski 2008, p. 16

[22] Archuleta 2006, p. 69

[23] Clodfelter 2017, p 134

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[a]

[2]

[b]

[1]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]