Would you have been a 'Patriot' or a 'Tory'?

During the American Revolution would have been a Patriot/Revolutionary or would you have been a Tory/Loyalist?

I into explanation why in 1776 I would have been what is referred to as a Loyalist/Tory. I would have preferred to keep with the Crown. The Revolutionaries/Patriots were violent rebels that were mostly what we call today 'Rednecks'. The Tories were educated, upper class officials.

It's not that I am against the founding fathers, the reasons for the revolution or the constitution. It is that I believe at the time it was unnecessary. We could have fought against the British without it being violent rebellion, we could have forced them to listen to us and come to some sort of peace agreement. We did not support compromise of any kind. We tarred and feathered our fellow citizens that just happened to disagree with the rebellion. I go into that further on that thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Tea Party Movement really mirrors the people who represented the revolution. I am opposed to the Tea Party Movement in any form. I think we are coming to a point in time where we have to either declare ourselves a Patriot(Anti-government, Tea Partier) or a Loyalist(Pro-government, anti-Tea Partier). I have already drawn my line in the sand. The government is bad and corrupt but the Tea Partiers are insane.

So which would you be? A Tory/Loyalist or a Patriot/Revolutionary?

And which side would you be on today? A Patriot/Tea Partier or a Loyalist/Pro-Government?

I stopped reading at " redneck" check your ethnic bias it gets old quickly.

reply to post by Misoir


What's with all the anti-patriot threads recently Misoir? And what do you have against the tea-party movement?

To answer your question I would definitely have sided with the whigs. Yes, they could be cruel but the tories were perhaps even more enthusiastic about torture. Also there were many tories who could be considered 'rednecks' today.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Misoir

 

What's with all the anti-patriot threads recently Misoir? And what do you have against the tea-party movement?

To answer your question I would definitely have sided with the whigs. Yes, they could be cruel but the tories were perhaps even more enthusiastic about torture. Also there were many tories who could be considered 'rednecks' today.

Anti-Patriot? Please define your meaning of the term, I don't consider myself anti-patriot. And I don't like the TPM because it is a Libertarian conservative movement, I'm not against people voicing their opinions I'm all in support of their right to protest, but it's also my right to disagree with them.

Most Americans at that time would be considered 'redneck' today. And yes the Tories were brutal too, but we could have done internal reforms not violent revolution.

I call BS!

Britain has seldom if ever let go of a land grab without a fight.

Another ploy of theirs is to seed people on land that they know will stay loyal to them. Just look at the Falkland Islands for an example of that.

So you support the upper class snobs that get along by breeding off the sweat of less fortunate class? Well good on you.

I'm for the working man and the regular human beings who chose a life of hardship in order to grow and not be fed from a silver spoon.

I'm also of Irsih descent so I would have been double against Britain.

And if I saw you in a red coat riding a white steed you can bet I would have picked you off first with my long barreled Kentucky rifle.

So do keep your head down mate.





[edit on 5-6-2010 by warequalsmurder]

NOBODY from the US on ATS with the exception of a few true surprises like the OP is going to admit to even the faintest shadow of the possibility of siding with the Tories. Although in fact many would have been.

I would have sided with the patriots. The patriots of that day were nothing like today's tea party movement.
Most of the Tories were only that because they were sure America was going to lose, they were scared.

Hmmm, what would I be? Man, I just don't have a clue.......

And I'm from Mississippi, so I suppose I qualify for the 'redneck' part, too.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by The Patriot]

I don't like high taxes. Among other things. I'm willing to bet I would have pitched in somehow on the right side.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3963912888ff.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Misoir


A fascinating question . Due to the fact I am not an American I cannot really answer that question I do however agree with the notion that you would have a hard time finding anyone who would side with the British . Judging by Threads like this one you would get more and interesting responses if you were to start a new topic and ask on side would have people taken in the American Civil War .

Cheers xpert11.

Patriots were like what we call "rednecks."... well sir, I am a red neck and damn proud of it. What do you classify as redneck?

Just by making such a statement puts you in the same class as those that generalize about blacks as being "too much like Negroes" and likeing watermelon or fried chicken....maybe your views of Jews being good with money should also be brought to surface.

You are no better than the iggnorant folks that wear white sheets or little black,white, and red arm bands and goose step.

Rednecks...what is a redneck...? I see rednecks as being the common man, someone that believes in old fashioned ideals of God, Mom, apple pie and John Wayne,...we work hard, see things in right /wrong...black/white...concrete fashion. We usually keep to ourselves and help each other as needed...but push us and go against our in grained sense of right and wrong...you have a hell of a fight on your hand.

We love our country and believe in the ideals it was founded upon...we know when someone is pissin' down our back and saying its raining.

Who the hell are you to be calling folks redneck? I don't doubt for a moment you would be a Tory... and it was sorry SOBs like you that we would tar and feather and kick the heck out of our country.

I generally don't get upset like this and those that read my posts know as much, but you really pissed me off...rednecks. Salt of the earth is what we are... you are merely covering your butt with no moral direction.

Originally posted by Misoir
The Tea Party Movement really mirrors the people who represented the revolution. I am opposed to the Tea Party Movement in any form. I think we are coming to a point in time where we have to either declare ourselves a Patriot(Anti-government, Tea Partier) or a Loyalist(Pro-government, anti-Tea Partier). I have already drawn my line in the sand. The government is bad and corrupt but the Tea Partiers are insane.

I'm wondering..... if the Tea Party Movement mirrors those in the Revolution then you must be missing the armed rebellion part. I certainly don't see it, do you?

You want insanity? How about the inner city gang problems, bums and drug addicts, homicides, kidnappings, theft, corporate crime, should I go on?

I'm so glad you've drawn your line the sand. I've always been of the thought that we're Americans of all backgrounds that need to see ourselves as a whole again and work together for the betterment of succeeding generations. To me, that's what the Tea Party represents.

So if that makes me insane, well I guess I'll dare someone to try and get me in a strait jacket.



[edit on 5-6-2010 by The Patriot]

Originally posted by Misoir
The Revolutionaries/Patriots were violent rebels that were mostly what we call today 'Rednecks'. The Tories were educated, upper class officials.

What?

Misoir I appreciate your input on this site, believe me. But you couldn't be more wrong on this one.

The Patriots made up 45% of the population of the Colonies by the time of the Revolution, and they came from all facets of society. They were not a rabble of "rednecks" comparable to the tea party. They included some of the most educated, liberal, free-thinking men of their time.

There were plenty of farmers, merchants, craftsman (people who might be referred to as "rednecks" or "blue-collar") who supported the patriot cause, but there were scholars, lawyers, educators and philosophers amongst them as well.

Historians, such as J. Franklin Jameson in the early 20th century, examined the class composition of the Patriot cause, looking for evidence that there was a class war inside the revolution. In the last 50 years, historians have largely abandoned that interpretation, emphasizing instead the high level of ideological unity.[28] Just as there were rich and poor Loyalists, the Patriots were a 'mixed lot', with the richer and better educated more likely to become officers in the Army. Ideological demands always came first: the Patriots viewed independence as a means of freeing themselves from British oppression and taxation and, above all, reasserting what they considered to be their rights.

Wiki

reply to post by Misoir


Redneck:

A sometimes disparaging remark denoting a white member for the Southern rural laboring class.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Beyond Webster's definition you have attempted to contrast "rednecks" with educated upper class "officials" and in doing so reveal your own woeful lack of education. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and most importantly Thomas Paine were all extremely well educated men and "upper class" people of whom you ignorantly call "rednecks". History has placed these men as iconic figures of the Age of Reason, and you would ignorantly dismiss them as being "rednecks".

Your pretentiousness knows no bounds, and you sir, represent the dying breed of hold-outs of left wing radicals who hi-jacked intellectualism more than fifty years ago, and redefined Marxist indoctrination to mean intellectualism. This thread represents a long line of poorly thought out ideology on your part that gleefully hopes to continue the divisiveness of classes.

Class warfare is a tool of the elites intended to keep the people divided in order to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, but revolution is just another word for change, and change happens whether people want it to or not. certainly the ignoramus is as entitled to their opinions as any educated person is, but the difference in opinion is increasingly reflected in your threads. Further, there is wisdom and the challenges of thought, and there is education. One can learn what is being taught to them, or one can consider what is being taught and challenge the contradictions, and illogical fallacies.

The only thing worse than an ignoramus is an ignoramus with an education. Any ignorant soul can think and learn their way out of ignorance, but a willfully ignorant soul who refuses to think their way out of ignorance does so because of the "education" they were indoctrinated with. Parroting what one has been taught, and presenting such duplications hardly constitutes wisdom, and any person that would take the advice of a fool, is a fool themselves.

The irony of declaring men such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Mason, Adams and Paine as "rednecks" is that it is very likely that you have not even come close to reading what these men have read, nor have you ever demonstrated the facility of language they possessed, and certainly have never come close to demonstrating the level of thought those men revealed. They had opinions, and you have an opinion, and the difference between these opinions is like night and day. The Age of Reason is long over, and your opinions fully demonstrate why.

Interesting.

I'm a Tea-Partier and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever had cause to think of me as a Redneck.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Cultural Dictionary:

redneck definition

A slang term, usually for a rural white southerner who is politically conservative, racist, and a religious fundamentalist (see fundamentalism). This term is generally considered offensive. It originated in reference to agricultural workers, alluding to how the back of a person's neck will be burned by the sun if he works long hours in the fields.

I am not a conservative by classic definition. I am not a Christian, fundamental or otherwise. I'm not a racist. I'm not ignorant. I'm not a farm laborer.

What I am is a concerned citizen who looks upon our 13 trillion dollar debt as a crime against the generations that come after me. I am a concerned citizen who views the Nanny State as an affront to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am a concerned citizen who is fed up to my eyeballs with intellectual elites who believe they know what's best for the Great Unwashed Redneck Masses.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


GMTA.

Sorry, I was typing as you were posting.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To quote Karl Childers in Sling Blade..." I like the way you talk."

Same point as me, but so much more eloquent. I guess after slow cooking a BBQ brisket all afternoon and a few beers and my eloquence is laying out in the yard somewhere.

Here,Here old boy...job well done.

My God!? George Washington, a Redneck?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c9a3fa835374.jpg[/atsimg]

No! Not Benjamin Franklin Too!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/903ca87feb43.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm sorry Misoir...

I can not respect your opinion in this case.

**** it, I'm a redneck and not ashamed. So what? My grandparents were dirt farmers. There was one pair of shoes for all the kids, and forget luxuries like flooring and hot water growing up. My parents went to work doing hard labor as kids, and I did so as a teen. I'm doing just fine now. I got a college degree (although that's not where my real knowledge was picked up, not by a long shot), am a compulsive reader, love my own family, and have started more than one business in my life, admittedly with mixed results. Anyway, none of that is what really makes a man, and I feel nothing to be ashamed of in my heritage.



[edit on 6/6/10 by silent thunder]

I think most people have gone on the tangent with your generalization of those who fought in the Revolutionary war and the TEA party 'patriots' today. Unfortunate.

To stay on topic; I think this is a bit of a loaded question, as someone earlier mentioned 'No one would side with the tories!' Well, obviously, some people did.

Given that, I can't answer honestly because I'm not the same person that experienced the same things that people 240 years ago experienced. It would be like asking, "Would you condemn Jesus as the Romans did?" or "Would you advocate burning witches at the stake 600 years ago?"