In many respects the American colonies governed themselves, but as they started to expand, Indian depredations became an increasing problem, obliging Britain to deploy regulars, in order to police this situation and protect the colonist’s homes. Then during the seven-year war (1756-63) the French tried to crush and drive the (non-French) colonists out of America, so Britain had to maintain a force of ten thousand men to defend them, because when the colonists were left to their own devices, they nearly always lost, George Washington was particularly useless, getting himself captured by the French; (it wasn’t until the revolution that he became an outstanding General).

But the burden of protecting the colonists was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and protecting them during the seven-year war had added another 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.

This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain £8000 in order to collect £2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.

The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:

1. The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
2. The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
3. They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
4. They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.


No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor. and were only being asked to pay one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who had and were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.

The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.

Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.

The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ' Boston massacre', portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.

http://www.redcoat.me.uk/

So apparently the British were not only defending the colonists, they were also protecting the natives.

Is this true?

The American Revolution was a good lesson for the British government. They realized that distant colonies needed to permitted a degree of self government. As a result when Canadians started rebelling, the concept of dominion status was put into place, so that the Canadians did not feel the necessity of leaving the empire. The Irish question would probably been a lot less problematical if there wasn't the strong anti-catholic position in the government inhibiting home rule in the early nineteenth century.

Both were patriots, the Loyalists were patriots to Britain, the Patriots were patriotic toward the newfound flag and future nation

So apparently the British were not only defending the colonists, they were also protecting the natives.

Is this true? Part of the truth. There's more to it.

The British were also, for example, enslaving the Indians and selling them to the Caribbean Island colonial plantations. As well as importing slaves to the American colonies, of course - against the desires of many of the colonists.

The first draft of the Declaration of Independence included "imposition of slavery" among King George's sins, and an early version of the American Constitution IIRC (might have been the Declaration itself, my memory fails me) freed all the slaves and banned slavery in the colonies - despite being a slave owner himself, Jefferson backed it and regretted its failure to pass. It lost by one vote, and that was because one confirmed abolitionist in the convening voters was home sick.

That vote would have ended slavery in the US in 1776.

But on topic: The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) There was an important Protestant contingent, best represented by Presbyterians like John Witherspoon. At least one English officer referred to the uprising as a "Scotch Irish Presbyterian" rebellion.

As far as popularity, note that the British were unable to raise an army from the colonists themselves. Like colonial powers everywhere, they found their local enemies mysteriously more competent than their local friends.

As far as popularity, note that the British were unable to raise an army from the colonists themselves. Like colonial powers everywhere, they found their local enemies mysteriously more competent than their local friends.

This was not completely true. In the southern colonies (Carolinas and Georgia) the bloodiest fighting was between loyal colonists and rebel colonists, with Indians fighting on both sides.

I'd hate to see what taxes would be like today if it didn't happen. (They are actually worse than what the 'mericans previously rebelled 'gainst).

The British were also, for example, enslaving the Indians and selling them to the Caribbean Island colonial plantations. As well as importing slaves to the American colonies, of course - against the desires of many of the colonists.

Where’s the evidence for this? You must be getting mixed up with the Spanish; the British didn’t capture Indians to use as slaves, in fact the British applied very little military influence over the colonists, they were there initially to protect them from hostile Indians, then the French and finally the insurgents. Yes the British did transport slaves to the colonies and sold them to colonists, because that is what they wanted and remember who the slaves were (although not an excuse), inter-tribe prisoners who if they didn’t have a value as slaves would have been killed in their endless rivalry.


The first draft of the Declaration of Independence included "imposition of slavery" among King George's sins, and an early version of the American Constitution IIRC (might have been the Declaration itself, my memory fails me) freed all the slaves and banned slavery in the colonies - despite being a slave owner himself, Jefferson backed it and regretted its failure to pass. It lost by one vote, and that was because one confirmed abolitionist in the convening voters was home sick.
That vote would have ended slavery in the US in 1776.


The British abolished slavery in 1807 well before the US who in fact were still importing them when the Royal Navy started to intercept slave ship bound for the US to set them free.

Yes you can tell a shyster, when they say one thing and do another, what matters is what they do and Jefferson, NEVER set his 200 slaves free.

And if this ‘supposed’ vote was so close why did it take another 50 years to set all slaves free.


But on topic: There was an important Protestant contingent, best represented by Presbyterians like John Witherspoon. At least one English officer referred to the uprising as a "Scotch Irish Presbyterian" rebellion.


Presbyterianism was first practiced by John Calvin so as to not have clergy, which is of course very convenient for insurgences, away from any other authority, when they want to make up the rules as they go along, like justifying murdering Loyalists


As far as popularity, note that the British were unable to raise an army from the colonists themselves. Like colonial powers everywhere, they found their local enemies mysteriously more competent than their local friends.


There’s no mystery about, the insurgents burnt down the houses and murdered the families of those who attempted to join the British, it’s the same in Iraq today, the moderate majority are intimated by the insurgents and without the enormous US input and their colossal expenditure the ruthless insurgents would win.
So when you write ‘more competent’ you really mean ‘more ruthless’ in suppressing of local friends who want to maintain an orderly society.

; the British didn’t capture Indians to use as slaves, in fact the British applied very little military influence over the colonists, they were there initially to protect them from hostile Indians, The Brits had been slave raiding up and down the American coast for more than a hundred years - if you read about the Plymouth Bay colonists, for example (the "first Thanksgiving" people) they were befriended by a local Red (Tisquantum, or Squanto, or other names depending) who had been captured by British slave raiders and escaped twice - that's how he had learned to speak English.
Yes the British did transport slaves to the colonies and sold them to colonists, because that is what they wanted and remember who the slaves were The colonists were the British, and the slaves the British shipped to the British colonies had mostly been captured for the slave market - they weren't just a byproduct of war, they were often the cause of it. The slave trade in Africa was very old, briefly raised to extraordinary scale by the colonization of the New World, and continues to this day in reduced form.
And if this ‘supposed’ vote was so close why did it take another 50 years to set all slaves free. More like 90 years. You don't get too many chances to change the foundations of a country.
Presbyterianism was first practiced by John Calvin so as to not have clergy, which is of course very convenient for insurgences, That's John Knox, not John Calvin, and Presbyterians have always had clergy - and long sermons by them. it’s the same in Iraq today, the moderate majority are intimated by the insurgents and without the enormous US input and their colossal expenditure the ruthless insurgents would win.
So when you write ‘more competent’ you really mean ‘more ruthless’ Always the colonizer's illusion - that the great majority of the locals are simply intimidated by this small ruthless minority.

It never seems to occur to them, what the implications are of the fact that the insurgents are the ones who aren't intimidated by ruthless power.

When your guys are the same people as their guys, living in the same towns, etc, and greatly outnumbering them, why do you have to send thousands of soldiers to have any chance of winning ?

Were the patriots of similar origins to the loyalists? What were the differences between the groups?

Were the patriots of similar origins to the loyalists? They tended to be poorer, from dispossessed areas of Great Britain (the Scotch Irish, most notably) or marginalized religions (Quakers, Puritans, notably).

The colonies themselves varied considerably in their makeup - weather and industry were much different north to south, attracting different people, and simple chance grouped - say - the Dutch.

The strongest Loyalist contingent was in the southern plantation colonies.

Both were patriots, the Loyalists were patriots to Britain, the Patriots were patriotic toward the newfound flag and future nation

True.

~String

They tended to be poorer, from dispossessed areas of Great Britain (the Scotch Irish, most notably) or marginalized religions (Quakers, Puritans, notably).



So they had a more vested interest in taking over Indian lands and not paying for their own defence?

Seems like they would prefer to have someone else doing their defence.

So was there no taxation of the colonies after the patriots took over?

Certainly not, at my recall. When they saw the secret tax-collectors enforcing their majesties' rule, they joined.

Domination by threat of presenting factual evidence, more was to ensue...

Actions alone often define, beyond the spoken word: 'Believe nothing of what you hear, and 1/2 of what you see..."

In todays' standard', the later is on the order of a fraction of a percent, by the way...

Hmm could you elaborate on those points, I could not fathom what any of them referred to

So they had a more vested interest in taking over Indian lands and not paying for their own defence?

Seems like they would prefer to have someone else doing their defence.

So was there no taxation of the colonies after the patriots took over? The disLoyal colonists did not view the British army even, let alone the German mercenaries and various privateers etc, as acting in their "defense".

The colonists were taxed before and after the Revolution. After, they were taxed by their own government in their own interests, rather than to pay large war debts run up by the British Crown (as well as having had to bear the brunt of the fighting in the Seven Years War).

rather than to pay large war debts run up by the British Crown (as well as having had to bear the brunt of the fighting in the Seven Years War).

Hmm so they were okay with the British defending them but did not want to share the costs.

How do these qualify as "large war debts"?

This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain £8000 in order to collect £2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.

No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor. and were only being asked to pay one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who had and were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.

What were they paying after?

Hmm so they were okay with the British defending them but did not want to share the costs. As noted, the colonists were doing the actual fighting, in a war for the benefit of the Crown.

They were defending themselves just fine. And after the Revolution, they had no trouble continuing to defend themselves - even without a good share of the citizenry, money, etc, departed as war refugees.

How do these qualify as "large war debts"? ? The Brits ran up serious debt in the Seven Years War with the French. They wanted to tax the colonists - the same who had done the fighting - to retire it.

As noted, the colonists were doing the actual fighting, in a war for the benefit of the Crown.

They were defending themselves just fine. And after the Revolution, they had no trouble continuing to defend themselves - even without a good share of the citizenry, money, etc, departed as war refugees.

? The Brits ran up serious debt in the Seven Years War with the French. They wanted to tax the colonists - the same who had done the fighting - to retire it.

Hmm apparently the colonists needed the British more than the British needed them. Is this wrong?

Then during the seven-year war (1756-63) the French tried to crush and drive the (non-French) colonists out of America, so Britain had to maintain a force of ten thousand men to defend them, because when the colonists were left to their own devices, they nearly always lost, George Washington was particularly useless, getting himself captured by the French; (it wasn’t until the revolution that he became an outstanding General).

But the burden of protecting the colonists was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and protecting them during the seven-year war had added another 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.

Hmm apparently the colonists needed the British more than the British needed them. Is this wrong? Considering that the colonists did most of the fighting then, and had no trouble after the Revolution despite being weakened by years of civil war, it's clear they didn't need official British protection very much.

Whether the Brits needed them I don't know. They did OK without them.

Considering that the colonists did most of the fighting then, and had no trouble after the Revolution despite being weakened by years of civil war, it's clear they didn't need official British protection very much.

Whether the Brits needed them I don't know. They did OK without them.

Hmm I don't know enough about this part of the history. Do you know of any works by loyalists?

How did the status of the native Americans change between the British rule and colonisation? Did they fight with the British or the patriots?

Hmm could you elaborate on those points, I could not fathom what any of them referred to

Fees were levied. In the name of the British Empire. Turncoats, branded, called themselves Loyalist.

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.

But wasn't it a British colony? Did the British soldiers not protect them from the French? The British used them to fight the French, using their homes and lands as the battle ground and their sons as soldiers.

The Seven Years War was a European war.
How did the status of the native Americans change between the British rule and colonisation? Did they fight with the British or the patriots? 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.

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.

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 Brits had been slave raiding up and down the American coast for more than a hundred years - if you read about the Plymouth Bay colonists, for example (the "first Thanksgiving" people) they were befriended by a local Red (Tisquantum, or Squanto, or other names depending) who had been captured by British slave raiders and escaped twice - that's how he had learned to speak English.

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 colonists were the British, and the slaves the British shipped to the British colonies had mostly been captured for the slave market - they weren't just a byproduct of war, they were often the cause of it. The slave trade in Africa was very old, briefly raised to extraordinary scale by the colonization of the New World, and continues to this day in reduced form.

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.



More like 90 years. You don't get too many chances to change the foundations of a country.

Why not? if they were as righteous as you make out.


That's John Knox, not John Calvin, and Presbyterians have always had clergy - and long sermons by them.

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



Always the colonizer's illusion - that the great majority of the locals are simply intimidated by this small ruthless minority.

What like the US illusion in Iraq?


It never seems to occur to them, what the implications are of the fact that the insurgents are the ones who aren't intimidated by ruthless power.


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.


When your guys are the same people as their guys, living in the same towns, etc, and greatly outnumbering them, why do you have to send thousands of soldiers to have any chance of winning ?

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.

They tended to be poorer, from dispossessed areas of Great Britain (the Scotch Irish, most notably) or marginalized religions (Quakers, Puritans, notably). .

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.


The colonies themselves varied considerably in their makeup - weather and industry were much different north to south, attracting different people, and simple chance grouped - say - the Dutch. .

?


The strongest Loyalist contingent was in the southern plantation colonies.

Main Loyalist colonies where Pennsylvania, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode island
Main rebel colonies were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia and New Hampshire.

Certainly not, at my recall. When they saw the secret tax-collectors enforcing their majesties' rule, they joined.

Domination by threat of presenting factual evidence, more was to ensue...

Actions alone often define, beyond the spoken word: 'Believe nothing of what you hear, and 1/2 of what you see..."...

And very little of 'at someone’s recall'


In todays' standard', the later is on the order of a fraction of a percent, by the way...

The disLoyal colonists did not view the British army even, let alone the German mercenaries and various privateers etc, as acting in their "defense".

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?



The colonists were taxed before and after the Revolution. After, they were taxed by their own government in their own interests, rather than to pay large war debts run up by the British Crown (as well as having had to bear the brunt of the fighting in the Seven Years War

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
.

As noted, the colonists were doing the actual fighting, in a war for the benefit of the Crown.

They were defending themselves just fine. And after the Revolution, they had no trouble continuing to defend themselves - even without a good share of the citizenry, money, etc, departed as war refugees.

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 Brits ran up serious debt in the Seven Years War with the French. They wanted to tax the colonists - the same who had done the fighting - to retire it.

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.

Always the colonizer's illusion - that the great majority of the locals are simply intimidated by this small ruthless minority. ”
What like the US illusion in Iraq? 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.
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 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.

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.
The British didn’t capture Indians to sell, but colonial pirates operating outside of the law probably did 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.
Main Loyalist colonies where Pennsylvania, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode island. 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.

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.

And very little of 'at someone’s recall'

OK standard. Next time around...I guess: WE"LL SCEE. scene!!!

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.

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.



The Scotch-Irish (my ancestors, partly, and the name is traditional in my family, thanks)

Well you must be descended from Irish whiskey then, a family tradition or not, scotch is just a drink


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.

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.


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
.

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.


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

Heritage, smeritage. Broke ass skippin' like a record, whence the needle flipped...

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.

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: 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.

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


So that's 40% of your claimed Main Loyalist support - the first Rebel colony, and the seat of the Rebel government.

They still stand


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.

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.


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.

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.



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.

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

OK standard. Next time around...I guess: WE"LL SCEE. scene!!!

What?

Heritage, smeritage. Broke ass skippin' like a record, whence the needle flipped...

Very obscure doe’s it mean anything?

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.

Your accusation doe’s not stack up:
- - - - in 1620 as the Plymouth colony began, the British could not have possibly taken Indian slaves as you write.
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.html

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.

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.

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
.

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
.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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:

Great Britain protects America, America is bound to yield obedience. If not, tell me, when the Americans were emancipated!

And Pitt countered:

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.

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