Talk:Continental Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Design of article

The ongoing question is how much detail goes in this article, and how much is moved to others? My intent is to use this article to give an overview of the interaction of congress and army, to create a general time sequenced narrative of major events, most of which get their own article. Any suggestions (or better yet help) as to how to complete this are certainly welcome. - Lou I 16:57 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Dates seem incorrect

"Most of the Continental Army was disbanded on November 3, 1783 after the Treaty of Paris. A small residual force remained at West Point and some frontier outposts, until the Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1783." So the United States Army was created before the dissolution of the Continental Army, or is this a typo? --Proteus71 21 Apr 2005

Fixed typo: the correct date is 3 June 1784. --Kevin Myers 15:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Continental Army's founding date

"The Army was created by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 15, 1775."

The US Army celebrates their founding as the Continental Army on June 14 (http://www.army.mil/cmh/faq/birth.htm) though it is the case that elements of their founding, such as having a Commander in Chief designated, were conducted on June 15. Is this a typo, or is the author choosing a different date than the US Army for reason?

Flag

Marc Leepson was on MSNBC trying to sell his book Flag ISBN 0312323085 (ISBN given to see if it's reputable or whatnot)... and he talked about the Continental Army first using a flag that had the U.S. flag Stripes... but the stars were replaced with the Union Jack... does anyone know (and can they find a copy) of the flag since it may be good for this article... gren グレン 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, interestingly enough it () happened to be on the main page... reading more about it I'm not sure if it should be included or not. gren グレン 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ranks

What are the ranks of the Continental Army?--Unknown user

That's a good question; this should clearly be in the article. The ranks are a simpler version of what we know today. Here's a basic list, from top to bottom. —Kevin Myers 04:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

General officers (commanders of large units)

• General and Commander in Chief (Washington)
• Major general (usually commanded a division)
• Brigadier general (usually commanded a brigade)

Field officers (overall operations of a regiment)

• Colonel (commanded a regiment)
• Lieutenant colonel (2nd in command of a regiment)
• Major (particularly responsible for administration)

Company-grade officers

• Captain (commanded a company or troop)
• Lieutenant
• Ensign (known as a cornet in a cavalry troop)

Non-commissioned officers

• Sergeant (3 or 4 per company)
• Corporal (in charge of a squad; 3 or 4 per company)

And finally

• Private (53–76 per company)

the amercian flag is a very important part of the world today.

Should this section be at top level rather than a subsection of Demobilization--Yendor1958 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing are ranks utilized by the artillery, at least for a few years into the War:

• Bombardier - in charge of a canon, overseeing a team of gunners and matross[es?], matross[i?].
• Gunner - the next rank up from matross.
• Matross - equivalent to a private as I understand it, the grunts who did all the hard work including hauling the canon from place to place with rope harnesses when oxen or horses were unavailable.

Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any fifers or drummers. Just from my impression, they rank higher in importance than privates, maybe similar to a corporeal? In payee and roster lists that I've seen, the fifers and drummers are listed higher up on the page than privates. In lists where only higher ranking soldiers are named and privates are not, fifers and drummers are named. Wordreader (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit for discussion

The following material, in a list like format, was recently added to the article by an anon editor. Opinions requested. WBardwin 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775 Purpose-the Americans were in rebellion about the British taxes and the Intolerable Acts put on them. To punish them British troops could just shoot all the ones rebelling against them. Strategies- warlike preparations were being made by the British. Minute were created by the Americans. They were ready to fight at anytime. It was not known if the British or the Americans shot the first shot. Since it was not known it was known as “The Shot Heard Round the World”. Ten were wounded and eight minutemen were killed. With out shots of victory the British marched on to Concord. The colonists had hidden the rest of the American cannons that the British thought they had taken. Minutemen stored guns in Concord that were found by the Britain Spies. As a surprise attack the British planned to capture the weapons. The Americans also had spies. At about midnight on April 18-19, 1775 about 700 redcoats left Boston. Paul Revere and his friend William Dawes were watching them. They said to everyone “The British are coming!” Morale of Troops-On the way back from Concord the British had little to shoot at. The Americans could shoot from behind trees, walls, and stone fences. This smashed the British. Results-This battle started the war. The British took over Boston. The British had 247 killed or wounded. Only about 100 colonists were dead so they had less than the British.-

Bunker Hill- June 16 1775 at Charlestown, Massachusetts Purpose- To get the control of tallness ignoring Boston Harbor Battle Strategies-on Breeds Hill the night of June 16 colonists came in and put up a fort out of dirt and logs. Morale of Troops- There was 3,800 American troops. "I thank thee, O Lord, for sparing me to fight this day." is what an American was praying. Results-Technically the British won only because they drove off the Americans from Breeds Hill, but since soldiers died the Americans won.

Battle of Saratoga- 1777 Saratoga, New York Cause or Purpose-John Burgoye came to America and plan to win a war. The plan was to capture Hudson River Valley. Battle Strategies- Burgoye started in Canada. Burgoye’s army had said “south to lake Champlain.”Burgoyne brunt back Furt Ticon deroga “The British headed through”. Morale-Before the battle, the British morale was high because they thought their plan would win the war. Results-the victory for the Americans was a turning point in the war. It showed the British strategy failed. The most important part France was convinced that it was safe to join the Americans side

Battle of Trenton December 25, 1776 at Trenton, New Jersey Purpose-British troops were there in search of Washington but were ruled to take winter quarters in Trenton, Princeton and other New Jersey cities. Battle Strategies- Washington crossed the Delaware River and took about 2400 troops. The Americans had marched in the night and were ready to plant their attack the next morning. They shocked their enemy by taking about 900 prisoners. They also striked Princeton, too, and they won. Morale- The American morale was rejuvenated and thousands helped to fight. Results- After those wins the Americans captured again most of New Jersey.

Bonhomme Richard and Serpis Battle at Sea September 23, 1779 Cause-To be able to fight on sea against the British. Battle Strategies-Americans turned merchant ships into warships. The ship of John Paul Jones’, the Bonhomme Richard, fought the British ship named Serapis. Morale of Troops-The first sea battle was won by the British. After that the Americans had high morale. The morale that helped them win the war was Captain Jones’. Results-Eventually the Americans forced the British navy men on the Serapis to surrender.

Clearly incorrect date! "1996"

First bullet under "Organization" heading reads, "The Continental Army of 1996, comprising the initial New England Army, organized by Washington into three divisions..."

I don't know the right date, but it is clearly not 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.16.2 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, anonymous people are free to vandalize articles at whim. That's what we had there. Thanks for pointing it out; it's been fixed. —Kevin Myers 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

16 Additional battalions

On 27 December 1776, Congress authorized Washington to raise "16 battalions" in addition to the 88 authorized in September 1776. Please see Extra Continental regiments and Additional Continental regiments. Cheers. User talk:Tfhentz 14:10, Nov. 3, 2008 (UTC)

\The Men of the French and Indian War/ …After the War these men some of whom resided in Massachusetts went to their place of begining. Residence perhaps. They were supposed to excerise every now and then, they were still considered a Malitia. They did not. After being recognized as a group of uncomfortableness, they yet continued. A Coffe House was the recomendation through the woman of the Colonies as rather a Tavern was then to be called, for respect you see. Well these men went off into the fields now to drink, they became disorderly. Many times they were of repremand. This drunkiness continued. I read that issue was givin to these men and perhaps, before 1775 even arrived to unite and make thrift of their ability. The authorization came from their commanders of the War they then had faught in. Oliver DeLancey was one of many respectable people to give this orderly a clue. This Predicament with respect was givin the name Continental, an Army to Police the Area from any or further encroachments of any habitat.

Does anyone have issue with this. I hope to regain my inventory for it, for it has been lost through a transaction and I wish to give apology of not being patient and finding yet source. Though maybe just through this a recommendation may accure. There was infact another opposition with the Continental Army and the acceptance of a Grouped Malitia, being a standing force. I Guess controll of one thing can lead to an opposition of another. Perhaps, why even a group could also have the opportunity, of to choose a declaring vantage.

Please help me with this extensive research of whom or what acquired whom. By The way wasn't the Clintons on the British side for some time. And what exactly was Livingston as Brigadeer General supporting, could it have been a recognition of transport, postal service, committee's of correspondence. I Mean he left New York through some Powered Faction. And after loosing power of the mobile personage in New York. What's up with that. Sure the law is the law and if within a law one may have no choice but to assist a law, or is it a standing, or forming law.? Well till next time. Lets not forget before the United States allot of people and documents mentioned In America, about America, or such as in conclusion of the American Colonies had historical evaluational and presence. Isn't the term being used already as an entity of self being. Also lets remember the DeLancey Faction in the creation and continuance of law whom represented the people through and with England. History is important. No-Taxation-without-Representation. Sure the Sons of Liberty dissolved an Assembly because they (the DeLancey faction) wouldn't agree with their (the sons of liberty) non-importation act. If there is no one invovled in an assembly of representation than a purpose of law by law has right. Thus the purpose of continuing government with the Declaration of Independence. Thus to be Independent of former Government, such be said and delared as a whole as to understand a circumstance, enabling it a law. Who's invovled. Now separation of New York to Pennsylvania.~Art Economics HistoryDavid George DeLancey (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC) _11:19 a.m. e.s.t. 6/6/2016~Fixed some spelling todayDavid George DeLancey (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Racial Integration

The article notes that the Continental Army was integrated and cites a documentary. This is an inaccurate picture of the Continental Army. At the beginning of the war, African Americans were not allowed in the military and it's not until 1778, I think, that George Washington began to allow for African American troops to join. Even then, the regiments were segregated and could only be from Northern colonies. Washington demurred the idea of having African American regiments coming from the Southern colonies. I suggest that a section be created to explain this aspect of the Continental Army more fully. Hateloveschool (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing a classification.

As usual, a classification is missing, Engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Size of the Army

I take issue with the assertion that the size of the army was "80,000 at its peak." This is very misleading. At no time did Washington have anything like those numbers. His army at Germantown numbered about 11,000 men. At Yorktown, French and Americans numbered about 19,000. At Saratoga Gates had about 15,000 men at the end. At Trenton Washington had about 3,000, tops. Breed's Hill, 2,500. At the very least there needs to be clarification with an assertion of 80,000 troops. Spread out through the entire colonies? And when? - Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.140.198 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is not misleading at all. Of course it is spread over all the colonies, the article is about the Continenal Army as a whole and not about a single field army. It includes everyone, everywhere, with peak strength being the point in time with the most serving. In this case they even included militia. The entry even has the note "80,000 militia and Continental Army soldiers served at the height of the war" in case somebody doesn´t get it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Irish question (again)

So an edit was made in the "Soldiers" section, regarding the Irish participation in the war, which switched "Protestants" to "Roman Catholics", in what appears to have been an attempt to imply that the majority of the (quarter or so) Irish soldiers in the CA were Catholic. As some of you may be aware, there's a lot of edit warring on articles pertaining to Irish Americans, thanks to certain "Scots-Irish" and "Catholic Irish" partisans, who appear to be too emotionally involved in their personal ancestries to edit such subjects.

What does Charles Patrick Neimeyer specifically say in America Goes to War? I don't have access to the source, but editors should not be interpreting sources based on what they "think" is true, as opposed to what the author actually wrote. If the source contains information that is outdated, inaccurate, or fringe, then another RS would be required to edit the content.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)