Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Make my procrastination useful!

This isn't a beg for help or anything, but I am currently working on my dissertation, a history work on the motivations and identity of the loyalists to the British during the Revolutionary War.

It'd be interesting to me to just see what the ol' Yankee-Doodles think of them, since one of my early contentions is that they're misunderstood when they are actually mentioned (which is rare). We're talking about a good 20% of the American population who stayed loyal here!

So, Yanks and perhaps Brits, or even others... what is your gut thought when I mention 'loyalists'?

No shame in wanting political and economic stability. Plus, being hung as a traitor to the Crown is a pretty terrible way to start your week.

We have a saying in sales. No matter what you are selling, 20% of the people will always buy it if you ask, and 20% will never take it even if you were giving it away.

So to me, 20% of the population being loyalists to the Crown is not a surprise.

How about their treatment?

The confiscation or property, the threats of labelling those who did not sign oathes of allegiance as traitors? The Patriots certainly made it very difficult for someone to remain apathetic, ambivalent or wilfully neutral. The 'terror' was widespread enough that it's actually a conclusion of mine that, unless you were a dearly-needed citizen, it was impossible to not pick a side. Loyalists were rendered totally ineffective because they were effectively repressed.

And, of course, after the war there's a flight of 20,000 refugees out of the United States.

Is this anything to be regretted or mourned? I really consider the conflict to be brother against brother. (I suppose the more famous one is father against son: Benjamin and William Franklin)

Henners91 wrote:Make my procrastination useful!

This isn't a beg for help or anything, but I am currently working on my dissertation, a history work on the motivations and identity of the loyalists to the British during the Revolutionary War.

It'd be interesting to me to just see what the ol' Yankee-Doodles think of them, since one of my early contentions is that they're misunderstood when they are actually mentioned (which is rare). We're talking about a good 20% of the American population who stayed loyal here!

So, Yanks and perhaps Brits, or even others... what is your gut thought when I mention 'loyalists'?

Tories. The roots of conservatism in America are in the loyalists of the Revolution. and pa pow. Crown Loyalists had your very typical British Conservative stereotypes, older generally prone to racism and resistant to change. The Dutch and Quackers are forgiven for both their loyalty and forgiven from the stereotype by being...well you know Dutch.
In a historical retrospect they were simply men holding to the belief that revolution would only lead to anarchy and chaos and the King represented order, The Revolutionaries were radicals, and the Tories had plenty of good reasons to doubt them. Looking at the French Revolution only a few years later and initially utilizing the same ideals, the loyalists were well served by their doubt. British liberty and justice didn't translate into the French experience and is probably why it failed. For all the rabid hated of the Crown at the time the Americans were still British at heart, so the loyalists can be forgiven for wishing to remain so by name as well as ideal.

AustonT wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Make my procrastination useful!

This isn't a beg for help or anything, but I am currently working on my dissertation, a history work on the motivations and identity of the loyalists to the British during the Revolutionary War.

It'd be interesting to me to just see what the ol' Yankee-Doodles think of them, since one of my early contentions is that they're misunderstood when they are actually mentioned (which is rare). We're talking about a good 20% of the American population who stayed loyal here!

So, Yanks and perhaps Brits, or even others... what is your gut thought when I mention 'loyalists'?

Tories. The roots of conservatism in America are in the loyalists of the Revolution. and pa pow. Crown Loyalists had your very typical British Conservative stereotypes, older generally prone to racism and resistant to change. The Dutch and Quackers are forgiven for both their loyalty and forgiven from the stereotype by being...well you know Dutch.
In a historical retrospect they were simply men holding to the belief that revolution would only lead to anarchy and chaos and the King represented order, The Revolutionaries were radicals, and the Tories had plenty of good reasons to doubt them. Looking at the French Revolution only a few years later and initially utilizing the same ideals, the loyalists were well served by their doubt. British liberty and justice didn't translate into the French experience and is probably why it failed. For all the rabid hated of the Crown at the time the Americans were still British at heart, so the loyalists can be forgiven for wishing to remain so by name as well as ideal.

Well stated. (Though I think you mean to type Quakers)

The American Revolution is relatively unique in history because there were no significant violent pendulum swings. The French Revolution is a perfect example. After all the nobles had been guillotined, the extreme revolutionaries turned back on their own supporters who were advocating more moderate stances in the new French government. Robespierre himself was executed. Naturally, the whole country fell into mass chaos and disarray. Napoleon was crowned emperor ten years later.

I DID mean Quakers ( and almost wrote quackers again). Thank you.

I remember reading somewhere that Loyalists were far more numerous than is widely assumed, particularly in the southern colonies. Obviously, as the war starts to go badly for the Crown this support begins to melt away - most folks just want to live in peace after all, particularly if they're poor and if that situation will remain largely unchanged WHOEVER wins.

Wasn't there a famine (or at least severe food shortage) shortly after the rebel's victory, incidentally? I'm sure I recall hearing something about THAT too...

Albatross wrote:I remember reading somewhere that Loyalists were far more numerous than is widely assumed, particularly in the southern colonies. Obviously, as the war starts to go badly for the Crown this support begins to melt away - most folks just want to live in peace after all, particularly if they're poor and if that situation will remain largely unchanged WHOEVER wins.

Wasn't there a famine (or at least severe food shortage) shortly after the rebel's victory, incidentally? I'm sure I recall hearing something about THAT too...

I believe the famine you are referring to was in France, not America as during 1788-89 France in the grips of famine took payments on the American Debt by grain instead of specie, there was political chaos under the articles of confederacy and a revolt shortly after the first United States government took office under the constitution.

OP may find this review useful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/books/review/book-review-libertys-exiles-by-maya-jasanoff.html?pagewanted=all

AustonT wrote:

Albatross wrote:I remember reading somewhere that Loyalists were far more numerous than is widely assumed, particularly in the southern colonies. Obviously, as the war starts to go badly for the Crown this support begins to melt away - most folks just want to live in peace after all, particularly if they're poor and if that situation will remain largely unchanged WHOEVER wins.

Wasn't there a famine (or at least severe food shortage) shortly after the rebel's victory, incidentally? I'm sure I recall hearing something about THAT too...

I believe the famine you are referring to was in France, not America as during 1788-89 France in the grips of famine took payments on the American Debt by grain instead of specie, there was political chaos under the articles of confederacy and a revolt shortly after the first United States government took office under the constitution.

Ah, maybe. I don't claim that American history (or British, for that matter!) is my strong suite. I thought I'd read something about there being a trade crisis as ties with Britain were severed. Or something. Could be crossed wires on my part, that.

There were salt riots in Virginia due to the non-importation policy and the colonies were unable to trade with other European powers. That's the only mention of unrest *I've* come across.

If you were a tradesman it was much better to deal with the British because the American currency suffered from hyper-inflation due to money being minted to pay the Continental Army. People often just used the pound.

The loyalists were considered to be a lot more numerous in the south; it's for that reason that the Southern Theatre was opened up by the British. The Carolinas had the regulator movement, that's perhaps the most notable loyalist presence.

If people are actually interested in what I've found on the loyalists, I'll type up some stuff, but atm I am rather pooped.

Henners91 wrote:

If you were a tradesman it was much better to deal with the British because the American currency suffered from hyper-inflation due to money being minted to pay the Continental Army. People often just used the pound.

Note that there was no singular "American" currency directly following the War for Independence. Under the Articles of Confederation (Drafted in 1777, ratified in 1781 if I remember correctly) the new federal congress had no power to mint money or levy taxes (or do much of anything, really). Every state minted its own money. It was an incredible mess. Exchange rate issues, inflation, deflation, etc... As you noted, most significant transactions were done in British pounds.

My 'gut reaction' opinion of them is overwhelmingly negative.

Of course, the logical side of me knows that they remained subservient for a number of reasons; issues of practicality, a desire for stability, maybe genuine loyalty to the king. A lot of them were likely average folks who were ok with the status quo, and I imagine that a number of them were born in England or Canada or other British territories, and considered themselves a subject of the crown, wherever they ended up living. So, logically, I know that their reasons were just as valid, in their opinion, as the motivation driving the Patriots, Buuut...

The emotional side of me remembers my own childhood and education, the glorification of the Patriots, the vilification of the British and their monarchy, etc. We're told stories of Bloody Ban Tarlatan, the Boston Massacre, the Baylor Massacre. Stories of the irrepressible persistance and dedication of the Patriots, and the callous cruelty of the British and their mercenary lackeys. It's all horribly skewed, of course, but when we're talking 'gut thoughts,' that stuff sticks with you. 'Don't Tread on Me' is a much stronger rallying cry than 'hey guys, things aren't that bad, pass the tea and praise the king!' The shooting, nay Martyrdom, of Crispus Attucks is considered a turning point in American History (never mind all the loyalists who got tarred and feathered and shot and what have you...) It's not fair, but it's culture.

The war's most famous loyalist was of course Benedict Arnold, a name that's synonymous with villainy and treachery here in the USA. It's still occasionally thrown around as an insult, and the political pundits bring him up now and then, usually in comparison to whatever politician they're complaining about. Anyway, at Saratoga, not far from where I grew up, there's a Revolutionary War monument with four small alcoves. Three have statues of generals (Gates is one, not sure on the other two). The fourth alcove stands empty; Benedict Arnold's contribution to the American cause didn't go unrecognized, but that being said the man's later actions made him unworthy of a statue. I believe there are other monuments at other historic sites that treat him in a similar fashion, though I've never seen them myself. It may be anecdotal, but I've read that at West Point's museum there's a room with plaques commemorating each and every US General since the Revolution; Arnold's plaque is anonymous, bearing his rank and years of duty, but not his name or his likeness.

I really enjoyed Kenneth Roberts' two major novels about the war, Rabble in Arms and Oliver Wiswell. The first is from the revolutionary perspective, the second a novel about a loyalist. Really excellent books.

Roberts also makes a particular point of emphasizing how standing up for Benedict Arnold , making him out to be a truly great officer and leader. Roberts liked attempting to rehabilitate the reputations of people he believed had been slandered by history. Which is another reason Oliver Wiswell is so good.

If i remember correctly there was alot of violence and persecution between the loyalists and revolutionaries, many tories had their property seized and were in many cases attacked and even murdered. When the British arrived in force, the tories exacted their revenge on the whigs and pretty much the same thing happened in reverse. Remember at first most "Patriots" didn't hate the king and were infact very loyal to the crown, although this would change later. They were primarily angered by the British Government and what they saw as unfair taxes (which is another matter entirely) and a lack of representation in parliament (which again to be fair was quite a reasonable, if not unlikely request). As mentioned before Quakers tended to try and stay neutral, however they were usually lumped together with the loyalists.

Alot of it also depended on how long they had been there for, newly arrived scottish immigrants tended to side with the British simply because they had not been intigrated into the country. This is also another reason why most canadians did not join the revolution.



Edited for General Sloppiness.

I wrote a fifty page paper on Loyalists during the Revolution for one of my final seminars.

Don't remember a damn thing I said in it.

AustonT wrote:
In a historical retrospect they were simply men holding to the belief that revolution would only lead to anarchy and chaos and the King represented order...

And statistically that was the most likely outcome. They didn't know that, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I really enjoyed Kenneth Roberts' two major novels about the war, Rabble in Arms and Oliver Wiswell. The first is from the revolutionary perspective, the second a novel about a loyalist. Really excellent books.

If read in the light of a larger knowledge of how revolutions tend to work, Johnny Tremain is also fairly good, if heavily tinted with idealism.

I'm not going to pretend anyone had any kind of moral supremacy; but, since the British weren't able to protect the loyalists throughout the Colonies, the Whigs effectively terrorised anyone who refused to sign oathes of loyalty. And, as mentioned, this could mean imprisonment, execution (for treason), tarring and feathering and exile and loss of property.

I also think it's possible to empathise with the notion that radicals such as Adams, in Boston, before the war, were populists playing to the unemployed and the poor, rousing them into lawless mobs. When you literally have massive bands of people going through the streets and tearing down the houses of stamp tax collectors and ransacking the governor's house, how can anyone who respects law not feel a little repulsed?

It wasn't a class war though, the Patriots may have been quick to utilise the impoverished, but they shed themselves of any commitment to actually improving their lot. Part of my essay is a suggestion that more 'revolutionary' activity was expected from the loyalists. If you look up the Regulator movement or the tenant farmers in the Hudson Valley, these were people who aligned to the loyalists because landowners and aristocrats that lorded over them were going over to the Patriots (like the New York Livingstons). So these paupers aligned to the loyalists hoping to get a division of the land of the traitors.

The 'easy' argument to make that the loyalists included the needy and destitute is to reference, the slaves, of course. Starting with the Dunmore Proclamation (which was actually prompted by slaves promising Dunmore they would fight for him if he freed them), slaves were able to fight for the British for freedom. The impact wasn't great, the slaves that made it were often just made into pioneers, but it scared the crap out of the Patriots in Virginia and elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Make my procrastination useful!

This isn't a beg for help or anything, but I am currently working on my dissertation, a history work on the motivations and identity of the loyalists to the British during the Revolutionary War.

It'd be interesting to me to just see what the ol' Yankee-Doodles think of them, since one of my early contentions is that they're misunderstood when they are actually mentioned (which is rare). We're talking about a good 20% of the American population who stayed loyal here!

So, Yanks and perhaps Brits, or even others... what is your gut thought when I mention 'loyalists'?

Tories. The roots of conservatism in America are in the loyalists of the Revolution. and pa pow. Crown Loyalists had your very typical British Conservative stereotypes, older generally prone to racism and resistant to change. The Dutch and Quackers are forgiven for both their loyalty and forgiven from the stereotype by being...well you know Dutch.
In a historical retrospect they were simply men holding to the belief that revolution would only lead to anarchy and chaos and the King represented order, The Revolutionaries were radicals, and the Tories had plenty of good reasons to doubt them. Looking at the French Revolution only a few years later and initially utilizing the same ideals, the loyalists were well served by their doubt. British liberty and justice didn't translate into the French experience and is probably why it failed. For all the rabid hated of the Crown at the time the Americans were still British at heart, so the loyalists can be forgiven for wishing to remain so by name as well as ideal.

I think this is a predominant view; that the loyalists were a bunch of rich gentry, self-interested merchants or crown officials. All old men. There are psychological studies to suggest that, the more recently connected you were to immigration, your age and even how far away you lived from your parents dictated your loyalty

I think commoners picked the side that looked the most beneficial to them, if they were active. I think many more people were just neutral but bullied into compliance (and hell, I'd have gone along with it). The older men? They saw the Patriots pandering to the mobs, abandoning the law and fighting their countrymen.

Henners91 wrote:
I think commoners picked the side that looked the most beneficial to them, if they were active. I think many more people were just neutral but bullied into compliance (and hell, I'd have gone along with it). The older men? They saw the Patriots pandering to the mobs, abandoning the law and fighting their countrymen.

Most of the populace of the colonies didn't pick a side, that's quite true.

Henners91 wrote:
I think commoners picked the side that looked the most beneficial to them, if they were active.

Not speaking specifically to the American Revolution, but in general commoners (read: peasants) are neutral until their lives or livelihoods are threatened. Tradesmen, basically the middle class, are the most likely to support a rebellion.

Basically, the rule is, if you don't want revolution, make sure most people are destitute (see North Korea).

dogma wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
I think commoners picked the side that looked the most beneficial to them, if they were active.

Not speaking specifically to the American Revolution, but in general commoners (read: peasants) are neutral until their lives or livelihoods are threatened. Tradesmen, basically the middle class, are the most likely to support a rebellion.

The bourgeoisie also have more to gain from protectionist economic policies offered by the revolutionaries.
Also bare in mind it was only a revolution because it succeeded. If the rebellion had been crushed it would have been an English civil war.

Joey wrote: If the rebellion had been crushed it would have been an English civil war.

It would have been an American Revolt, not a civil war.

The distinction between nation and state was much more distinct even then.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote: If the rebellion had been crushed it would have been an English civil war.

It would have been an American Revolt, not a civil war.

The distinction between nation and state was much more distinct even then.

It would have been a war between two groups of Englishmen, therefore a civil war.

Joey wrote:
It would have been a war between two groups of Englishmen, therefore a civil war.

We would call it that now, but they wouldn't have. American colonists weren't Englishmen, they were Colonists. Which now strikes me as eerily reminiscent of "sodomite".

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
It would have been a war between two groups of Englishmen, therefore a civil war.

We would call it that now, but they wouldn't have. American colonists weren't Englishmen, they were Colonists.

They were good Christian Englishmen, as English as anyone. Of course they were.

Joey wrote:
They were good Christian Englishmen, as English as anyone. Of course they were.

Yeah, those good Christian Englishmen who left England because their "good" brand of Christianity was considered heretical were "good Christian Englishmen".

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
They were good Christian Englishmen, as English as anyone. Of course they were.

Yeah, those good Christian Englishmen who left England because their "good" brand of Christianity was considered heretical were "good Christian Englishmen".

Uh no they left England because the state wasn't intolerant enough for their liking, so they left for the colonies where they'd be free to oppress minorities at their whim.
In fact to quote wikipedia "Many Patriots in the Thirteen colonies argued that their rights as Englishmen were being violated".
The colonists regarded themselves as English until after independence. How long after that is debatable, but on the outset of the revolution they were in no doubt at all about being English.

Joey wrote:They were good Christian Englishmen, as English as anyone. Of course they were.

Since the Act of Union had long since been passed they would have been British. American Mutiny has a bit of a ring to it. They weren't English, in the same way that Falkland Islanders for example are not English.

You've got to have at least a grudging respect for anyone who goers to war because tea is too expensive. I'd have more respect if they went to war because it wasn't being made properly.

Joey wrote:
Uh no they left England because the state wasn't intolerant enough for their liking, so they left for the colonies where they'd be free to oppress minorities at their whim.

And because the state would not tolerate their intolerant belief system.

Joey wrote:
In fact to quote wikipedia "Many Patriots in the Thirteen colonies argued that their rights as Englishmen were being violated".

Many of them did, and many of them also didn't like England because they were in fact Dutch, or Swedish.

Joey wrote:
The colonists regarded themselves as English until after independence. How long after that is debatable, but on the outset of the revolution they were in no doubt at all about being English.

Many of them did, but the English, the actual English, did not.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Uh no they left England because the state wasn't intolerant enough for their liking, so they left for the colonies where they'd be free to oppress minorities at their whim.

And because the state would not tolerate their intolerant belief system.

Joey wrote:
In fact to quote wikipedia "Many Patriots in the Thirteen colonies argued that their rights as Englishmen were being violated".

Many of them did, and many of them also didn't like England because they were in fact Dutch, or Swedish.

Joey wrote:
The colonists regarded themselves as English until after independence. How long after that is debatable, but on the outset of the revolution they were in no doubt at all about being English.

Many of them did, but the English, the actual English, did not.

I can't be bothered to flick through my Niall Ferguson (don't laugh) but the colonists WERE English, culturally. Obviously there were people who weren't from England but America was culturally English.
Therefore to the loyal English colonists the rebellion was an attempt to split the English peoples of the world and sever them from King and Country.