Talk:Powder Alarm

Quotes?

Why are there quotes around "dress rehearsal" in the beginning? Are they scare quotes? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're scare quotes. There's no suitable wikilink (dress rehearsal is a dab page, with a pointer to rehearsal, where "dress rehearsal" is defined), otherwise I would've just linked it. (Alternatively, one could link to wikt:dress rehearsal, something I hadn't previously considered.) Magic♪piano 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I wrote the sentence in question back in the "old days". (Ahah, there's another one!) "Dress rehearsal" not really a scare quote, since there's no irony involved, but instead just an indicator that this is an idiom sometimes used to describe the Powder Alarm. I don't specifically remember the source I had in front of me when I typed that sentence -- back in the "old days" we weren't so fussy about footnotes -- but a quick Google Book Search just revealed three sources that used the phrase to describe the event (none of which I consulted at the time). One could remove the idiom and rephrase, or cite an example of this usage, or write something like "...has sometimes been called a 'dress rehearsal' for the Battle..." (with a cite), or just leave it as it is. —Kevin Myers 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I've seen the term used in at least one source. But the quotes here are really just to highlight the term -- one might just as well use italics, MOS allowing. Magic♪piano 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The second definition of dress rehearsal at Merriam-Webster is a practice exercise for something to come so I recommend removing the quotes. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Slanted language

As the article stands now, it leans in one direction. For example: using the word "patriots" to describe those who reacted to the event, and saying the patriots were in the majority while loyalists were in the minority. The use of patriots implies that loyalists were not patriotic - which they were - and the claim that anyone was in the majority is simply not provable. This article - like all articles - should be evenhanded. Thus, I am going to trim a few words.Closedthursday (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)I also took out references to "unpopular" events, which again implies approval or disapproval of things we did not see, and "British" actions like the Gaspee Affair, which was primarily a rebel, colonial action. What we call unpopular was popular to some, therefore neither word should be used.Closedthursday (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "Patriot" (note capitalization) did not mean then what it means now; in fact, it acquired its present meaning from its use during the Revolution to refer to the rebels in the conflict. This word is used in most of Wikipedia's Revolutionary-era articles to refer to that side, and it is usually linked (on first mention) as I did above. Furthermore, the popularity (or not) of events at that time can be assessed; they may not have had polling, but they did have newspapers and private correspondence. Magic♪piano 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll let the revert stand at the moment. Perhaps others will join the discussion later. The most egregious part of the article is using "majority" for the rebels and "minority" for Loyalists, since even John Adams said that only a third of the colonists supported the Revolution, a third were loyal and a third were neutral. It also seems inappropriate to use the phrase "unpopular British actions" for the Gaspee Affair, since it was the rebels who attacked and set the ship on fire. The article is not overtly slanted, but it has a slight we won tone to it.Closedthursday (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I support the version Magicpiano reverted to. The Loyalists were certainly a minority by 1765 after the Stamp Act and well before any fighting broke out. How do we know? Because they couldn't even show their face and if it was suspected they had the hated Stamps from London even on their property a rampaging mob would destroy the stamps, property and if not tar and feather him. It was just not a safe decade in America for those few voices who continually like to advocate "Big Government". This is well known and well documented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As you point out, people said nothing because they were afraid of "rampaging mobs," but that does not make rebels a majority, just as the lack of records for those who were loyal to the government does not mean the people did not exist. Using the words majority and minority is inappropriate because we do not know how many were loyal or neutral. We assume. We want certain things to be true in retrospect, 240 years later. The rebel view is well documented, but that does not automatically make them a majority.Closedthursday (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the rebels were not a majority in eastern Massachusetts, you'll have to bring some sources that say so. Most sources I've seen that discuss these events are pretty clear on the subject. Magic♪piano 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "rebels" is of course what the "redcoats" referred to them as, not hard to see the point-of-view in this revisionism, is it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I don't have to prove the patriots/rebels were in the majority; the article does. The citations given in notes 3 and 4 (Frothingham and Fischer) do not talk about majority or minority. So I send the ball into your court: where are the reliable sources that are "pretty clear" saying that rebels/patriots were a majority? If there is no way to prove it, the claim can be removed. Making small and justifiable changes to improve an article is the whole point of Wikipedia.Closedthursday (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing text that provides linkages to other key events does not improve the article. For example, you criticize the language around the Gaspee Affair because it suggests that it was a British action, when it was not. Your criticism has merit, but the solution is not to remove mention of it (which is what you did), but to more properly contextualize or characterize it (which is what I have just done). You also removed text from the lead that described what the reaction to the alarm was, leaving someone who reads just the lead with little clue as to what the fuss was all about. (The lead is arguably still deficient in this respect as it now stands).

I am at a loss to see how you can read a work like Fischer (perhaps not the exactly cited page) and not come away with the idea that most of the province was against the government. I also believe that the Adams estimate you mention refers to all 13 colonies, and not just Massachusetts. Not every fact requires citation, but since you take issue with the majority-minority language, I'll either find a suitable source that more precisely supports the point, or tailor the language to what specific sources say. Do you have sources that go into Massachusetts Loyalist-Patriot demographics? Magic♪piano 02:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First let me say this is exactly the kind of debate Wikipedia is designed for - I appreciate it. I do not have sources for the demographics. I simply think the idea of majority or minority is a statement put in by an editor who assumes it was true, and the article loses nothing by trimming that phrase out, along with phrases like "massive popular reaction" in the opening sentence, instead of the simpler "reaction." However, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.Closedthursday (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest getting ahold of some of the eyewitness accounts - there are literally bookshelves full of these you can peruse - before attempting to argue that the loyalists aka "Tories" enjoyed some kind of a "silent majority" once British troops started messing with the colonials. In fact, documents show George III had been deluded by very similar arguments of a 'silent majority' of loyalists, especially in the south, by the likes of loyalist governor Josiah Martin of NC, and Lord Dunmore of Virginia who openly boasted that he could keep his entire population in line with only 300 armed men. Relying on such intelligence, the British army got a crude awakening. Here is what Lord Cornwallis himself had to say on the subject of Tories upon whom he had been depending. "Our experience has shown that their numbers are not so great as had been represented and that their friendship was only passive." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few fruits of a trip to the library:

• According to one widely-cited study (JSTOR link), about 20% of the 13 colonies' white population was Loyal.
• The Adams "1/3 were Loyal" quote is a misinterpreted reference to support for the French Revolution. (seen in a variety of sources, including the above)
• One author's analysis indicates that New England was less Loyal than elsewhere, and that Massachusetts was the least Loyal of those (his estimate was 2%). Maas, Return of the Massachusetts Loyalist, pp. 137-142.
• Thomas Allen, Tories, spends much of his second chapter describing attempts by Loyalists to organize in Massachusetts. While these are anecdotal and not statistical, they almost all fail. The one success he documents, Marshfield, required army protection because they feared elements from neighboring towns. Protests by Loyalists were generally small (topping out at 1-200), as compared to the much larger Patriot mobs, and were consequently squelched out.
• The state assembly (which had morphed into the illegally-constituted Provincial Congress by the time of these events) included a few elected Loyalists. Allen, pp. 21-22. (The difficulties royal governors had with the Massachusetts assembly fill volumes; by the time of Gage's arrival both the assembly and the governor's council were controlled by hostile opposition.)

None of this surprises me, and no source I've seen has even attempted to credibly argue that the Loyalists enjoyed significant support in Massachusetts. Magic♪piano 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Powder Alarm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212161100/http://concordma.com/magazine/spring05/cannons.html to http://www.concordma.com/magazine/spring05/cannons.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905151753/http://www.salemhistoryonline.com/PowderAlarm.html to http://www.salemhistoryonline.com/PowderAlarm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)