reply to post by alldaylong
No...actually I just missed it. Not sure what you are fishing with there...but the Boston Tea Party could possibly be considered the starting gun, so
Are you implying that most rebellions are started by the entire populace at once, rather than being led by individuals? Name one.... Every
historical event has had it's leaders, instigators or whatever....I really fail to see your non-existent point?
Regarding the move to Canada...you stated that all loyalists moved. Not only was that wrong, it wasn't even close to right...and again, I fail to see
your point other than not everyone supported the revolution. Name a revolution which WAS supported by all of the populace... Just ONE.
"Loyalists were American colonists who remained loyal to the Kingdom of Great Britain (and the British monarchy) during the American Revolutionary
War. At the time they were often called Tories, Royalists, or King's Men. They were opposed by the Patriots, those who supported the revolution. When
their cause was defeated, about 20% of the Loyalists fled to other parts of the British Empire, in Britain or elsewhere in British North
* So much for all the loyalists moving to Canada...which is what you were called on.
Got it? Are you trolling? Because you are not making any points by constantly making comments that are patently and demonstrably false or implying
something that makes no difference. (such as the difference between the colonies who revolted and the "indigenous" populations that revolted in
Ireland and Scotland).
In 1968 historian Paul H. Smith estimated there were about 500,000 Loyalists, or 16% of the white population.**
Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the
king and Britain:
They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come some day, but wanted to postpone the moment.
They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
Some were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of Scots who rebelled
in Scotland and lost their lands when the king won.
Other motivations of the Loyalists were:
They felt that the colonial assemblies and Parliament were the only legal channels of democracy, government and reform.
They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.
This group of Loyalists included linguistic and religious minorities, recent immigrants not fully integrated into American society, and blacks and
They lived on the frontier and relied on the peaceful land negotiations and treaties that the British Government had contracted between European
settlers and Native Americans.
They had been promised freedom from slavery.
They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and military protection.
Hmm...I do not see anything listed by this historian regarding disliking tax evaders.....I think I will believe a Yale historian over a troll any day.
** Paul H. Smith, "The American Loyalists: Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength," William and Mary Quarterly (1968) 25#2 pp. 259-277 in
edit on 27-6-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)