D
decantemix
Guest
Fees were levied. In the name of the British Empire. Turncoats, branded, called themselves Loyalist.
Were the Loyalists the true Patriots?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Fees were levied. In the name of the British Empire. Turncoats, branded, called themselves Loyalist.
But wasn't it a British colony? Did the British soldiers not protect them from the French?
" Were the Loyalists the true Patriots?"
No, poodles of patriots, as it turned out.
No, poodles of patriots, as it turned out.
The British used them to fight the French, using their homes and lands as the battle ground and their sons as soldiers.SAM said:
The Seven Years War was a European war.
Depended on the tribe. Some fought with the French, some with the British, some with the Americans. Trade routes and wealth were involved - the Reds clear to the Plains had come to depend on steel knives and blankets, and the ones nearer the coast who controlled the trade routes inland were protective of their middleman's cut.SAM said:
Part of what looks like confusion and failure to recognise an enemy in hindsight was racism. The Reds had a pretty low opinion of the Whites' capabilities - they had been pinned on the coast for more than a hundred years, bereft of survival skills, importing their necessities and starving when the ships didn't make it from Europe, unable to even cross the Appalachians - so the Reds saw no threat in any of them. Maggoty losers, with neat stuff for the longhouse and the wife they were willing to sell unbelievably cheap.
When the first Whites went native, became essentially a tribe of their own, and moved into Kentucky, the Reds simply didn't take them seriously until it was almost too late. The wars that followed were on the same pattern as the Reds had established - only the White tribe was better armed and had draft animals.
D
decantemix
Guest
Yeah, the Native Americans preferred separation. From the White Man, and his Lies.
The pressing along Marches of Death occurred on a remote level, and they chose distance.
When confronted, they tended to not march in glory, but leave areas to be avoided.
When the British fought the War of Independence, due to the influx of immigration, they went to colony mode. The French were quite active, as were the Dutch. German immigrants, along with extremist from the Isles fought for land.
As it is though, these Loyalists hoped to profit from the ensuing struggle. Profit of Doom, so to speak. As an interesting side note, once dessimated they had to reform, as the New Quakers. Which, by the way is a whole nuther' story. There is still a Quaker party, and they practice of these times. To profit in War.
Many equate them to the War Industry, as the ones whom would supply, and take, from whomever; while avoiding the conflict at its true level.
The pressing along Marches of Death occurred on a remote level, and they chose distance.
When confronted, they tended to not march in glory, but leave areas to be avoided.
When the British fought the War of Independence, due to the influx of immigration, they went to colony mode. The French were quite active, as were the Dutch. German immigrants, along with extremist from the Isles fought for land.
As it is though, these Loyalists hoped to profit from the ensuing struggle. Profit of Doom, so to speak. As an interesting side note, once dessimated they had to reform, as the New Quakers. Which, by the way is a whole nuther' story. There is still a Quaker party, and they practice of these times. To profit in War.
Many equate them to the War Industry, as the ones whom would supply, and take, from whomever; while avoiding the conflict at its true level.
The British didn’t capture Indians to sell, but colonial pirates operating outside of the law probably did, but to suppose you need to capture someone to teach them English is just far-fetched, The colonists were outnumbered thousands to one by the Indians and would have been looking for cooperation not confrontation with them.
The African slave trade had been established for hundreds of years, first by Arabs, then the Spanish, Portuguese and French before the British turned up and the US was still taking them well after the British had abolished it.
Why not? if they were as righteous as you make out.
Knox studied under Calvin’s Protestant reformation and I don’t regard anyone calling themselves Presbyterian clergy when it was used to justify murdering Loyalists
What like the US illusion in Iraq?
Of course it occurred to the British, the insurgents weren’t frightened of them after Boston, that’s what makes them insurgents, murderers and these days suicide bombers etc.
The rebels had been planning for years, they were the criminal fraternity and although only a minority (even the rebel inflated estimate was only 33% of the population) just like military coups the only chance the law abiding have is with a friendly army.
That’s again is a misconception, the Scots (don’t let them catch you calling them Scotch) and Irish were some of the most loyal and were not dispossessed, but highland life was very harsh so a new land would have been very tempting. And yes the colonies was the place if you wanted to come up with a new religion.
?
Main Loyalist colonies where Pennsylvania, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode island
Main rebel colonies were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia and New Hampshire.
The Germans (Hessians) were from Hanover and the British had previously tried to defend them against overwhelming odds, but in return they weren’t much use. What privateers, Canadians, Indians, Slaves? and the French trying to drive the British colonists out of America, not in their defence?
Hardly taxed before the war, but after such a brutal revolution the American people were forced to pay much higher taxes for a lot less security
.
That’s a joke, the colonists were hopeless without the British, as on their own they invariably lost against the French.
And as much as you would like to think the rebels defeated the British, this was not so, as Washington had no army left that would fight, they hadn’t been paid for months, but the French paid the wages of about 6'500, and had 10’000 of their own troops at Yorktown, against 3'300 fit for duty British and Loyalists
The British wouldn’t have gone to such huge expense of sending troops to the colonies, if the colonists were doing ’just fine’, but after the French threat in the Americas had been eliminated by the British, the smugglers and disloyal didn’t depend their protection anymore.
Yep. Colonial powers make the same mistakes over and over and over, all of them. They never seem to recognise that serious rebellion requires just cause and broad support - so if it exists, so does the just cause and broad support.2012 said:
The Scotch-Irish (my ancestors, partly, and the name is traditional in my family, thanks) were mostly dispossessed and impoverished Lowlanders shipped to Ireland to be thugs, and their re-shipment to the Colonies as a sort of disposable thug squad for the frontier turned out to have been a mistake - their great loyalty to the Crown's Authority vanished about five minutes after they realized the Crown's Power was mostly on the other side of a very large ocean.2012 said:
No tartan, no Gaelic romance, no ancient tradition or Clan loyalty to speak of , no special weapons or foods or clothing or skills, the sitdown Cauld Wind Pipes rather than the marching Highland Pipes and those only for the rich - they had nothing. They hated all Kings, and often joined Red communities. They were the first Americans, by some estimations.
When the Plymouth colony stepped ashore, as one of the first colonists in that part of the Americas, they were greeted by a Red who had been captured twice by British slave raiders, and learned English in slavery (and after his two escapes) on the eastern side of the Atlantic. The British were slave raiding all along the eastern seaboard of the Americas for more than a hundred years.2012 said:
Lessee: Pennsylvania - that would be where the Rebels set up their headquarters; in Philedelphia at first, then retreating to safety in Lancaster as the British attacked with imported soldiers. It was the central state of the Rebel government.2012 said:
Rhode Island: a corporation, actually, not a political entity, it was the first of the colonies to declare independence from England and the site of the first military action of the Revolution - the sacking and burning of a British ship that had the misfortune to run aground where the Rhode Islanders could get at it.
So that's 40% of your claimed Main Loyalist support - the first Rebel colony, and the seat of the Rebel government.
North Carolina and Georgia: lightly populated slave plantation states, possibly more than half black, and many Loyalists among black and white - and red. A lot of the Loyalist fighting was by the Cherokee, who feared expansion (correctly). So here we have Loyalists, actual Loyalist militia, but not so many white colonist ones, and not many people at all.
New York: lots of Loyalists here, city and country. Might have been as much as a third of the population - thousands of Loyalists (but outnumbered) driven from their homes by the Rebels in rural NY, and in the city the wealthy merchants of the Crown - as well as the Dutch entrepreneurs, etc - not at all approving of the rabble roused. They had seen the mansions of their fellows attacked in Boston riots, and had an idea of what the roots of this rebellion involved.
But they were unable to raise a Loyalist militia, and throughout the Revolution Loyalist militia were in short supply. The Reds, the Hessians, the British regular army, did most of the land fighting. And there was no Loyalist navy at all.
D
decantemix
Guest
OK standard. Next time around...I guess: WE"LL SCEE. scene!!!
They do seem to under estimate what a violent minority can do and how their ruthless style of warfare will wear down an intervening force, but one man’s ‘just cause’ is another’s anarchy.
Well you must be descended from Irish whiskey then, a family tradition or not, scotch is just a drink
Most enlightening - So you’re probably not going to be a source of unbiased information then.
Yes sending such people out of the way to the other side of a very wide ocean would have it’s ramifications, particularly if they then were to become the over-the-mountain-men, alienated by anything British who only identified with their new surroundings and became the main source of recruitment for Washington’s army
.
Your accusation doe’s not stack up:
Cabot just checked out the Americas in 1497 and no one stayed - Raleigh dropped off some people in 1585 who were only able to barely survive until Drake picked them up in 1586 Some more were landed in 1587, but no trace of them was found in 1590 - The Virginia company landed in 1606 and only existed at the tolerance of the Indians – So in 1620 as the Plymouth colony began, the British could not have possibly taken Indian slaves as you write. The Spanish however did so for about 100 years prior to this. Also to dispel your myth, the Indians were used by the British colonists to recapture escaped slaves, something they wouldn’t have done, if they were subjected to it themselves
D
decantemix
Guest
Heritage, smeritage. Broke ass skippin' like a record, whence the needle flipped...
Yes the Rebel headquarters was set up in Philadelphia precisely because there were a lot of Loyalists there, an indication of how many, was when the British had to leave, they had a 12 mile tailback of Loyalists with them, which was only a proportion, as most of them stayed
Rhode Island was quite religious and did not want the crime the rebellion was offering and the reason the British set up a base there was it was friendly to them
They still stand
In the south, the fighting was done by nearly all Loyalists militia, as they were good recruitment areas and would have had a lot more of them but for the rebel cavalry who went round murdering loyalist families.
Are you copying all this stuff from the Rebel Propagandist’s Handbook?
New York was 90% Loyalist, it was the main base for the British, so most rebels left, while thousands of Loyalists were arriving.
Loyalist Militia was in short supply outside of where the British provided protection, as those loyalists who join up would have their families murdered because that is what your glorious rebels targeted. But away from these family murdering rebels, they got about as many recruits as Washington did
What?
Very obscure doe’s it mean anything?
D
decantemix
Guest
Don't go "Total Recall", on me. The famous scifi thriller.
I'm aware of history belongs to the speaker, but you sillies look like a Bard's tale, Nero'N, with a busted ass flute.
I'm aware of history belongs to the speaker, but you sillies look like a Bard's tale, Nero'N, with a busted ass flute.
It isn't an "accusation", it's an observation of historical circumstance. Here is the most English-friendly link I can find to the events ( treats the enslavements as unusual, etc) http://members.aol.com/calebj/squanto.html2012 said:
The abolitionist movement in England was a long time in succeeding - and greatly to the English credit that it did (although we note that after the loss of the American colonies it became much easier, and before that economic liberation the abolitionists had had even less success in England than they subsequently did in the US. When the abolitionists lost by one chance vote in the newly forming Continental government, with unity and survival at stake, they were losing by far more than that, and with much less at stake, in Parlaiment ). Before its success British slave raiders operated all along the American coast for foreign markets, and British plantation owners eagerly purchased African slaves for their operations in the Colonies.
Loyalists were not only betting on the big dog, but were themselves disproportionately drawn from the powerful and wealthy - including plantation slaveowners, rich merchants in New York importing indentured labor, etc.
Given the circumstances of indentured labor, terms of immigration, etc, one can almost characterize the Rebel cause as a sort of slave revolt - with the events of 1865 a continuation of "politics by other means".
A better balanced account of the Revolution than that offered in US schoolbooks would be a good idea, but the notion that 90% of the rural New Yorkers - well armed, tough and experienced from the Seven Years War, and with support from most of the Iroquois Nation tribes (serious military backing at the time) - would run away from their homes and abandon local military fortifications upon being threatened by a few of their neighbors in a criminal and disorganized uprising, is a bit silly. The Loyalists were outnumbered and overpowered on the frontier.
Last edited: