Ok, can you recall 'Rekall'
So what doe’s the forum jester or is it poet, think about ‘He who ignores his history will make the same mistakes again’?
.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Were the Loyalists the true Patriots?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Ok, can you recall 'Rekall'
So what doe’s the forum jester or is it poet, think about ‘He who ignores his history will make the same mistakes again’?
.
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)
That’s different, I thought you were writing about a British trade in enslaving Indians. The two that were captured in your link(arrogant and thoughtless as it was) became there friends
The abolitionist movement in England was a long time in succeeding -
But much shorter than everybody else
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.
Slaves in America didn’t benefit Britain at all, outside of them wanting the colonies to succeed (if you want to believe that or not) but the West Indies earned a lot money for the Empire and was dependant on Black workers, but it was still abolished by Britain.
Anyway I’m not out to defend Britain, that’s just natural instinct.
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.
It might seem like that to someone who, for what ever reason feels disenfranchised, but loyalty is not betting on a big dog, it’s state of mind, whether rich or poor and yes indentured labour doe’s seem like slavery today, but it was common place back then, so people who had no hope of owning land in Britain could get, free passage, free food and land of their own in the colonies by agreeing to work as indentured labour for a few years.
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".
Something for nothing is a lot of peoples demand, but an agreement should be an agreement
.
D
decantemix
Guest
Ok, can you recall 'Rekall'
So what doe’s the forum jester or is it poet, think about ‘He who ignores his history will make the same mistakes again’?
.
I dub thee idiot a mighty of the head?
You speak for all, you know, them not. Tell a re-tale, resell the slunged' heap.
You speak on what you do, hoping for error, for you see; you mock at yourself, quaint little Jester. Make a face.
A better balanced account of the Revolution than that offered in US schoolbooks would be a good idea,
Yes, although I recognise what is taught in US schools, is mainly for national cohesion. it would be refreshing for the Loyalists to be given more slack.
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.
On the actual frontier, I think they mainly had contempt for what laws the British passed, but despite Burgoyne’s defeat there, around the Hudson, Albany etc. it was mainly Loyalist country and many of them would not stay in the new USA, so became the forebears of today’s Ontarians.
Those in New York city/Long Island, if they didn’t stay went to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Abaco Islands.
The criminal uprising was anything but disorganised, it was clever, imaginative, adaptive and resourceful, if anything, it was the British who were at times disorganised.
From what I’ve read, Loyalists (often townies) did tend to wilt away under the ferocity of a rebel onslaught, but that doe’s not discount their numbers
.
I dub thee idiot a mighty of the head?
You speak for all, you know, them not. Tell a re-tale, resell the slunged' heap.
You speak on what you do, hoping for error, for you see; you mock at yourself, quaint little Jester. Make a face.
I speak for the unheard, that I wish to know, nervous of error straightening that bent out of shape, idiot maybe, but who’s to judge, some one from Tennessee
.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I have never seen completely convincing evidence on the numbers and relative percentages of Loyalists versus Rebels during the War. There is some anecdotal evidence, and a lot of inference based on incomplete data.
Adding to the difficulty of pinning down a convincing estimate are several factors:
(1) The loyalists didn't need to fight to the same extent the Rebels did...Loyalists had the British army for that and there may have been segments of the Loyalist community who, though they desired to remain British, didn't feel strongly enough about it to get shot over their preference. Sitting back and watching was a viable strategy for the Loyalists. There were a lot of Loyalists who fought, but it can't be assumed that the number who fought gives good evidence of their total numbers.
(2) After the war, the Loyalists who remained have every interest in downplaying their Tory roots. Feelings were running strongly against them, and they and subsequent generations were probably all too happy to lose any reputation their family had for being Loyalists. Likewise physical evidence of their anti-Rebellion stances, like letters, were more likely to meet Mr. Fire than those of the victorious Rebels, or at least less likely to be lovingly preserved.
(3) No one was very interested in preserving the history of Loyalists. Most of the Loyalists we know about in detail were either governmental officials (like Ben Franklin's son William) or were the ones who emigrated after the war (which, we can reliably estimate, was about 100,000).
(4) The division between the two is likely not as binary as it appears. It would not surprise me if a broad majority of Americans, for example, would have preferred to remain British if only the crown and Parliament hewed more closely to the ideals fostered by the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (for the educated) or simply treated the colonials "fairly" (for the less well educated). There's doubtlessly a continuum between the rabid Loyalists who would take arms against anyone guilty of sedition and a more mild "on balance, I guess I'd rather stay British, but gee it would be nice if they treated us better" Loyalists. Many of the founding fathers expressed a desire to remain British early on, they simply wanted to be treated by the same standards they felt all British subjects were owed.
I've seen many figures estimating the total population of Loyalists. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging from "they were the majority" to their numbering as few as 400,000. There may be compelling scholarship out there on their numbers that I am unaware of, and it would be interesting to see that if there is.
Adding to the difficulty of pinning down a convincing estimate are several factors:
(1) The loyalists didn't need to fight to the same extent the Rebels did...Loyalists had the British army for that and there may have been segments of the Loyalist community who, though they desired to remain British, didn't feel strongly enough about it to get shot over their preference. Sitting back and watching was a viable strategy for the Loyalists. There were a lot of Loyalists who fought, but it can't be assumed that the number who fought gives good evidence of their total numbers.
(2) After the war, the Loyalists who remained have every interest in downplaying their Tory roots. Feelings were running strongly against them, and they and subsequent generations were probably all too happy to lose any reputation their family had for being Loyalists. Likewise physical evidence of their anti-Rebellion stances, like letters, were more likely to meet Mr. Fire than those of the victorious Rebels, or at least less likely to be lovingly preserved.
(3) No one was very interested in preserving the history of Loyalists. Most of the Loyalists we know about in detail were either governmental officials (like Ben Franklin's son William) or were the ones who emigrated after the war (which, we can reliably estimate, was about 100,000).
(4) The division between the two is likely not as binary as it appears. It would not surprise me if a broad majority of Americans, for example, would have preferred to remain British if only the crown and Parliament hewed more closely to the ideals fostered by the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (for the educated) or simply treated the colonials "fairly" (for the less well educated). There's doubtlessly a continuum between the rabid Loyalists who would take arms against anyone guilty of sedition and a more mild "on balance, I guess I'd rather stay British, but gee it would be nice if they treated us better" Loyalists. Many of the founding fathers expressed a desire to remain British early on, they simply wanted to be treated by the same standards they felt all British subjects were owed.
I've seen many figures estimating the total population of Loyalists. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging from "they were the majority" to their numbering as few as 400,000. There may be compelling scholarship out there on their numbers that I am unaware of, and it would be interesting to see that if there is.
D
decantemix
Guest
I speak for the unheard, that I wish to know, nervous of error straightening that bent out of shape, idiot maybe, but who’s to judge, some one from Tennessee
.
Whatever, Ip rate. How's it going anyway, you bent out of shape.
Let's see, Twisted Syster on Steroids, right?
Quit of the Dumb. I know where I am, your not HERE!
Both were patriots, the Loyalists were patriots to Britain, the Patriots were patriotic toward the newfound flag and future nation
"What is treason? Merely a matter of dates."
-- Talleyrand
D
decantemix
Guest
Benedict Arnold: Swing not low, upon that tree.
For it may knot be good to thee.
You see others' may see of your see. C
Because when your amongst the others, it's polite to ask.
To take without just cause. It is not to ask.
Leftovers, sometimes, applaused, much.
However, know knowest, that at my hands, this keyboard did touch.
For it may knot be good to thee.
You see others' may see of your see. C
Because when your amongst the others, it's polite to ask.
To take without just cause. It is not to ask.
Leftovers, sometimes, applaused, much.
However, know knowest, that at my hands, this keyboard did touch.
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.
I think I’ve been misleading, I meant that in New York City/Long Island, it was 90% Loyalist, how many there were in New York State I don’t know, but using early rebel figures, they claimed that they had a sizable majority in Massachusetts, Connecticut , New Hampshire and Virginia and I don’t of anyone that would dispute this. They also admitted that rebel and Loyalist numbers were evenly split overall, so as Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina were also probably even by deduction Georgia North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York and Rhode Island must have had a Loyalist majority. I’ve read that New Jersey could have also been Loyalist but I’m not sure.
Whatever, Ip rate. How's it going anyway, you bent out of shape.
Let's see, Twisted Syster on Steroids, right?
Quit of the Dumb. I know where I am, your not HERE!
Don’t you fret, it’s coming along just fine, have no wish to be and of steroids there’s no sign
.
(4) The division between the two is likely not as binary as it appears. It would not surprise me if a broad majority of Americans, for example, would have preferred to remain British if only the crown and Parliament hewed more closely to the ideals fostered by the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (for the educated) or simply treated the colonials "fairly" (for the less well educated). There's doubtlessly a continuum between the rabid Loyalists who would take arms against anyone guilty of sedition and a more mild "on balance, I guess I'd rather stay British, but gee it would be nice if they treated us better" Loyalists. Many of the founding fathers expressed a desire to remain British early on, they simply wanted to be treated by the same standards they felt all British subjects were owed.
From this side of the Atlantic the colonists were being treated well, but with the rebellion leaders saying they weren’t and able to disguise that they were really talking about themselves, it is now entrenched in American folk law.
.
I've seen many figures estimating the total population of Loyalists. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging from "they were the majority" to their numbering as few as 400,000. There may be compelling scholarship out there on their numbers that I am unaware of, and it would be interesting to see that if there is.
It would be interesting, but as you write, apart from the 100,000 that left the country, what records will exist? when no one after the war had any interest in saying they had been a Loyalist, when their property could be confiscated and were to be subject to triple tax
As for percentages I also found it confusing because as time goes by, American estimates continually get reduced from about 30% down to some that are as low as 5% I’m sure they would take down to zero if they could, but they can’t get around those that left the country that remain substantiated by the compensation claims the British paid out to American born Loyalists
But to suggest this was anything other than about a 10% tip of an iceberg, is unrealistic, because few people are going to want to leave their place of birth, quality of life, familiar surrounding, neighbours etc, for the climate of and the then wilderness of Canada or the uncertainties of an island in the Caribbean.
What no more comebacks, pithy comments, a riddle?
Oh well, I’ll leave you with this link that will help explain the differing view from that most Americans are used to:-
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/Rev-War.htm
Liberty without wisdom and virtue is the greatest of all evils, for it is folly and vice without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke
Oh well, I’ll leave you with this link that will help explain the differing view from that most Americans are used to:-
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/Rev-War.htm
Liberty without wisdom and virtue is the greatest of all evils, for it is folly and vice without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
From this side of the Atlantic the colonists were being treated well, but with the rebellion leaders saying they weren’t and able to disguise that they were really talking about themselves, it is now entrenched in American folk law.
.
Well to be fair, not everyone thought that on the far side of the Atlantic, not even everyone in Parliament. The legitimacy of raising taxes without the consent of the governed was a major sticking point that led to the showdown of the English Civil War...and colonists were being taxed without any representation in Parliament whatsoever.
That's what led to the famous exchange between William Pitt and Lord Grenville.
William Pitt said:This country has no right to tax the colonists. There is an idea in some minds that the colonies are represented in this House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here?
to which Lord Grenville replied:
Lord Grenville said:Great Britain protects America, America is bound to yield obedience. If not, tell me, when the Americans were emancipated!
And Pitt countered:
William Pitt said:The gentleman tells us, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three million of people so dead to all feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.
I come not here armed at all points, with law cases and acts of parliament, with the statute book doubled down in dog's-ears, to defend the cause of liberty: if I had, I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham. I would have cited them, to have shown that even under former arbitrary reigns, parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham ? He might have taken a higher example in Wales; Wales, that never was taxed by parliament till it was incorporated....
I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman. I know his abilities. I have been obliged to his diligent researches: but, for the defense of liberty, upon a general principle, upon a constitutional principle, it is a ground on which I stand firm; on which I dare meet any man.
...
The gentleman asks, when were the colonies emancipated? But I desire to know, when were they made slaves?
...
The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper. They have been wronged. They have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will undertake for America, that she will follow the example. There are two lines in a ballad of Prior's, of a man's behaviour to his wife, so applicable to you and your colonies, that I cannot help repeating them:-
"Be to her faults a little blind
Be to her virtues very kind."
Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately; that the reason for the repeal should be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle.
William Pitt had as his ultimate goal the regularization of trade with America, which he saw as generating more wealth than the taxes being imposed, but he never waivered from the principle that the Americans rejection of Parliamentary taxation was well-founded and the taxes unjust, nor that the taxes combined with the deposing of the Massachusetts elected government with parliament's lapdogs and the forced quartering of British troops on American private property and the increasing use of martial law, aggravated the situation to the point where the Americans had few options but to be start rebelling.
Last edited:
Well to be fair, not everyone thought that on the far side of the Atlantic, not even everyone in Parliament. The legitimacy of raising taxes without the consent of the governed was a major sticking point that led to the showdown of the English Civil War...and colonists were being taxed without any representation in Parliament whatsoever.
What was I thinking, my post was far too personalised.
Nice bit of work by the way and of course you’re absolutely right, there was probably the same ratio for and against the argument on both sides of the Atlantic, although I think the Whigs did romanticise the rebel argument a lot.
From my experience there still is probably the same ratio here today.
Decantemix is probably going to have fun with this.
US 1 UK 0