"Would you be a Patriot or a Loyalist?" Topic

Based on your political leanings today, would you have been a Patriot or Loyalist, if you were an American in the time of the American Revolution?

I honestly do not know. While I hate taxes as much as the next sane person, I am also very much a status quo conservative. I hate change.

So, while I would like to think I would be a rebel, I REALLY can't stand the rich radicals of today. I would consider that smuggler John Hancock to be on a par with George Soros and the other rich liberals like Warren Buffett.
And don't get me started on the fabulously wealthy rock and movie stars…

I hate to say it, but I could probably be a Loyalist or Tory.

Which might explain why my Loyalist units are better uniformed than my Patriot ones.
I have Queen's Rangers, Butler's Rangers, British Legion, DeLancey's, Skinners, Royal Highland Emigrants…

That is a good question.

Well, if I did decide I am completely anti-royalty. I see zero value in it and deny the right of anyone based on birth to a position of leadership/control over me or mine. I am quite firm in that opinion so if I did fight it sure would not be as a Tory although my politics are more conservative than liberal. I'm not down with the whole King/Queen thing.

Thanks,

John

Patriot….Thats all I can say.

Rather agree with you John. Said as someone who wanted to play with the blue poker chips rather than the red for checkers when a lad.

Rather like my current sympathy with the 'States Rights' view.

I think I would be anti-royalty also. But erro n the side of caution, so maybe a closet Patriot.

It probably would have come down to who burned my farm… A lot of times that's how it was decided. If the patriots burned you out, then you became a loyalist. If the loyalists did it, then you became a patriot.

I would probably be leaning loyalist, but it's hard to say.

The country was split in thirds during that time period. 1/3 patriot, 1/3 loyal, and 1/3 "independent"…

Patriot all the way. And I don't feel applying the modern interpretation of 'conservative/liberal' to it really jibes.

I thrive on status quo too, but the "don't tread on me" temperament runs pretty deep (but I suppose that's also a regional distinction).

It's topical, like a creme.

While I'm not exactly a fan of taxes I can understand when taxes are a useful thing i.e. when I get something of value from them. In the case of the American revolution I would think that I would be able to see that my taxes were paying for things that benefited me. Now there were a lot of other restrictions on things that I would not have liked at the time and the representation issue, which could have been pretty easily resolved and was a constitutional issue if you viewed yourself as an Englishman, would have put me in the other camp.

Overall I actually probably would have been a moderate, one of the third not on one side or the other.

Impossible to answer. We know too much.

Also, at least here in the South people were pressed into being being a loyalist or patriot regardless of their true feelings, fearing for their family's safety and property. And then forced to switch back. It was crazy and brutal.

That being said, I'd probably be an anarchist, killing anyone who stepped foot on my property. That is my idea of true freedom. :-)

I'd likely be a capitalist, selling to anyone who would buy… and swaping out the flag waving outside my house based on who was marching by at the time

As I posted in another thread, the patriot side were mostly conservative in their views and even after Lexington & Concord, appealed to king for reconciliation. link
For myself, I am an anti-monarchist as a matter of principle, and frankly I'm amazed that any rational human being can defend such an unjust, corrupt and unaccountable institution in either the 18th or the 21st century.
(cue Monty Python link) :)

I have no problem with the historical phenomenon of royalty, and consider myself reasonably rational.

Agreed with CP that we know too much, but I think I would have been a Loyalist with a lot of gripes. Loyalty would have ultimately prevailed, I think.

I wonder if that would change depending on the place of my birth? Whether birth on this continent as opposed to the mother country would have altered things?

It's a dam' good question, John.

I strongly suspect that the spiritual ancestors of many who laud their support for the men of 1776 would have been Loyalists, because traditionalists value, er, tradition over everything else. It's ingrained.

I'm from over there, of course, but I have no special regard for the monarchy, and would have been a dangerous radical in thought if not actual deed.

I've thought about this question for years. Sam Adams and his cronies seem to have been not much more than obnoxious thugs. The ingrates objected to paying their share of defending the Colonies; reminds me of those today who have a sense of entitlement for everything, and I'm talking both rich and poor and average Joe's alike. In my line of work, I see them all trying to play the system for their own gain. But I digress.

Loyalist for sure…my descendants would be living in Canada today. But, strangely, I'm glad it all worked out like it did. ;-)

I would have been a Patriot, as I have little use for Kings then, or now.

It wasn't a war against monarchism! :)

Neither, I would have helped all the tribes unite and push the immigrants all back across the pond.

Loyalist. But since I am a citizen of the crown that may have some influence.

WR

Considering my family were New York Dutch who didn't like anyone wearing red and voted with their feet anytime too many English settled near by. Plus 1 or 2 of them were involved with a certain Virginia militia colonel in land speculation. I really cant see them supporting King George at all.

My current believes are more along the lines of the Paris mob. I can think of several rich bastards I would love to see guillotined, along with their spoiled brats . I think Jefferson was right. We need a good bloodletting every generation or so to keep the system clean.

If, I were an American, I would probably be a Patriot. Big brother is still big brother.

Loyalist! I my opinion the war of independence was a terrible mistake that could have been avoided! :)

Don't worry John the OFM – YOU wouldn't have been paying the taxes and YOU wouldn't have got the vote either.

It probably would have come down to who burned my farm… A lot of times that's how it was decided. If the patriots burned you out, then you became a loyalist. If the loyalists did it, then you became a patriot.

I would probably be leaning loyalist, but it's hard to say.

The country was split in thirds during that time period. 1/3 patriot, 1/3 loyal, and 1/3 "independent"…?

NealSmith,

In his entirity, I agree.

However, a more interesting response should
come from non-British and non-Americans, with no residual vestige interest.

Patriot – but democracy can be tyrannical too, make no mistake: two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner and all that.

Patriot then & now

As per the OP, based on my 'political leanings today', then Loyalist.

I don't trust Republics, too easy to end up with a Putin or a Burlusconi. Or Hitler.

A consitutional monarchy has an interesting separation of state powers.

Based on my birthplace (hessen- nassau) and noone asking me about my politic views i would be a hessian.
:)))))

Actually, Martin the US Constitution had a pretty darn good separation of powers as well.

For further thoughts on that visit the Fez.

I love both freedom and the status quo, and want to be able to raise my family in peace. I will willingly fight anyone who tries to stop me. So probably independant, however if forced into one or the other "extreme" camps slightly lean towards patriot.

In my opinion local govt is better, because if they off too many people they have to look you in the eye. A govt farther away can force you to do something with less compunction because they don't have to face their constituents. Taxation may have purpose or NOT but I want my views expressed

"NO taxation without representation!"

John nice thought provoking question.

Hmmm. Great question. My master's thesis was on the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the radical network they tried to build -- Sam Adams and Joseph Warren et al, the original Tea Party. Their opponents were the moderate well-to-do merchants of Boston, who opposed British taxation but were not prepared to go to extremes in that opposition.

It was not political principles and objectives so much as temper and methods that divided the Patriots pre-1774-75. The Tea Party and the disastrous British response -- the Intolerable Acts -- forced the merchants to choose one extreme or the other and they came down behind the radicals.

At THAT point (1772-75) the Loyalists were silent.

Afterwards? Would I choose democratic bumptiousness, popular tyranny, over arrogance from across an ocean? Mel Gibson's character in THE PATRIOT puts it well: one tyrant a thousand miles away or a thousand tyrants a mile away? Dunno. Probably be a radical -- by temperment -- but have lots of admiration for the british.

One last observation: revolutions pick up and intensify pre-existing conflicts. The Livingstons were Loyalists when they controlled NY, then switched to Patriots when the deLanceys, who had been Patriots, threw them out and took over NY. Both powerful families chose their sides according to their own political ambitions and fortunes.

And in the Carolinas, the ex-Regulators, the common frontiersmen, hated the rich planters who had crushed them at Alamance in 1774. When the planters became Patriots, partly so they could avoid paying their large debts to British merchants, the ex-Regulators became Loyalists. As Forrest MacDonald puts it in E PLURIBUS UNUM, they were "loyal to a king who, for all they knew, might only have been a rumor."

I have given a fair bit of thought to this question and I still am not sure of the answer.

If only George had listened to the Colonists instead of his Ministers….

From the French and Indian war to the civil war, my family fought on both sides….I'd go the route of the other 1/3"independent " and hole up in the wilderness ; yet that didn't work out too well the last time! ;)

Patriot……."Gonna kill me some Redcoats"

Patriot. The Declaration of Independence covers it well. That said it would not be the easiest or safest path one could chose.

Loyalist. No beer for you Roger.

Eric

Although this is a thinly veiled political thread I would be a Patriot like my forefathers. There is still no other country I would prefer to live in, no offense meant to each his own. And if you do prefer to be a Loyalist you can easily move to another country to become one.

Probably Loyalist

As noted, the AWI did not start out as a war against monarchy – many of the original rebels just wanted to be treated within their rights as Englishmen – when the Crown's response went far beyond that, a lot more people got involved

Neither – I would be in the vast mass of people who just wanted to get on with life.

By my political leanings today?

Patriot.

Hereditary aristocracy and nobility are merely slavery wearing a different hat.
-Kle.

Patriot.

Patriot.

Based on my values today, Loyalist. But I'll qualify that by noting that I think (as somebody put it) it would depend on who burned your farm or where you were living at the time and whether or not you felt you had a stake in the rebellion or not.

There were a number of nominally loyal citizens who went with the Rebels for any number of reasons--don't forget, initialy there was not a lot of talk about actual independence (maybe some of the higher ups were hell bent on it at the outset, but there were some rather spirited debates in the Congress prior to the Declaration.

For the record, my ancestors were rebels. They were from the Virginia frontier (Augusta County) and fought at Point Pleasant (Lord Dunmore's War), King's Mountain and possibly Guilford Courthouse (info on that is sketchy).

As for today, we already have an aristocracy. It's just based (mostly) on something other than heredity.

When considering pre-existing grievances, how about this: Was it so wrong to expect the colonies to help defray the cost of the French and Indian War?

I don't think so.

John—a thought provoking question however it is one that cannot be answered with any degree of certainty, as our respective circumstances would certainly be different than they are now. I envision myself wanting to be left alone in order to take care of my family.

I think that I might have been a closet patriot. I don't like a strong central government. I believe in states rights, but I don't know that I would have took up arms to fight.

Of course if I was in an area where a lot of my friends joined the cause, then I would have went. I probably would have died because I make a pretty easy target…

Patriot.

Loyalist.

The Republic was a great idea but it became a democracy. Democracies always fail when the voters realize they can vote themselves goodies. At that point they become Kleptocracies.