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

with NO hesitation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, loyalist, just look at the tea party (s) or what ever the hell that is, or who they are, or what they do, or who/what they believe in. ask'em, they are CLUELESS! I asked a lot of TP folks, and they just look at you and – uhuhhhhhhhhh uuuuhhhhhhhh

Senor Squint opines:

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.

So you would have been Tom Paine? Or at least thought about being Tom Paine.

I always thought of Lafayette as the son of a General Motors vice president who went to Cuba to cut sugar cane for Fidel.

Nah. Mexican Jack writes better than Paine. In fact, his rules and other written bits are …..

Paine-less.

Eric
(ducks behind big heavy object)

Patriot – if that means colonial revolutionist? I'm British and live in Britain but America is the greatest nation on earth and the only one founded on a moral principle, namely that government should be limited in its sphere of action.

It's just a shame so many Americans since 1776 have tried to undermine that idea…

Loyalist.

230 years on, I'd say the Loyalists have evolved societies that (on balance) I prefer. So Loyalist I guess.

230 years ago? Likely whatever was necessary to keep my family safe.

I had a US history teacher who would have said:
"Loyalist or traitor? I mean patriot."

It really would depend on the attitudes of my social circle and family. I can see good points to both sides and I can see how the whole story could have been avoided. If it came to fighting it would depend on what the people around me decide. Human beings are social creatures and that explains participation on a side in conflict a lot more than personal beliefs.

That said I cannot see the WAI as a conflict between monarchy and republicanism. It was really a conflict between an absolutist parliament vs. people left out of that parliament, a recurring theme in English history IMHO. I bet that if the British had given the colonial elites the parliamentary representation they wanted , they would had sold out that most radical elements. I admire the founding fathers but I am not blind to how easy it would had been for the the British Parliament to satisfy them if it was not pig-headed. Considering they were pig-headed I guess I would had ended up a Patriot.

I always love that anglo-american conservative proclivity to speak of republics vs. democracy. (res publica and demo kratia are etymologically exactly the same or close enough-> public rule. Trust them to give them different meaning. And do not tell me in a Republic the majority cannot get what it wants. Sure it can. Get a big enough majority and what exactly stops you from amending the US constitution at will? The majority rules America just as much as it Rules France or Britain, or Sweden. It just requires bigger majorities to get what you want).

America was never a republic or set up as one despite the claims to the contrary. A true republic has a non-amendable constitution and non-amendable participation rules (like most classical republics. What could be done and who could do it could not be changed short of civil war or coercive power). They also suck if you are not part of the elite.

The French tended to wear their coats in the Peninsula as they were cooler than the closer fitting habite. Although I don't know for sure I'd suggest their greatcoats might been rather more like what we'd call a mac or a trench coat (ie quite light) these days and not like the heavy greatcoats of say WW2.

Loyalist, and as a direct descendant of William Caldwell of Butlers Rangers I guess it runs in the family.

Background in journalism, so probably a Tom Paine or Ben Franklin wannabe.

Using the 20/20 vision of History it is very easy to confuse the actual events of the Revolution with the results it created. Today the American Democracy is admired throughout the world as an expression of how people can express themselves. So it is easy to claim that the "Patriots" were right because of what resulted. Those who were opposed then were wrong because they are now seen as anti-democaric.That is why many now call a revolution a war for independence.

The reality was very different. In the "Revolution" Americans were as willing to kill each other as they were to kill redcoats. There was no clear idea of what the "rebels" wanted. What started out as a "Petition of Grievances " where America "could have" remained part of Britain turned into a war for independence.

At that moment people had a choice to make and it was not necessarily whether you were a "Loyalist" or a "Rebel" . No one knew what would result if the Rebels won – specifically – what type of government would there be. It could have easily have become as undemocratic as democratic.

In reality George Washington was offered the title of "King" and a strong fraction within the Army was pressing for military rule. What became the "Order of Cinncinatus" could have become the beginnings of a nobility.

In the calm of peace Americans had the time to decide and it did take time The US Constitution came into effect in 1789 and the First Presidential election was not until 1792 both a long time after the fighting had stopped.

So being a "Loyalist" did not automatically mean that your only loyalty was to a foreign king. It could also mean that you were suspicious of the"motives" of the rebels and saw patriot leaders as rabble rousers and Liberty boys as gangs of outlaws. Probably you were in favour of law and order and the stability that allowed you to conduct your own affairs and raise your family in a system that promised protection and safety. You could also have been suspicious of the French and why they were supporting the rebels. Finally you could not be sure of what was to come preferring to keep what you had. There was fear that the British would win, as they were expected to, and that today's patriot would be tomorrow's traitor.

At first many people wanted to sit it out but as the war intensified people were forced to choose. If you waited too long to become a patriot you were branded a "Tory" and had a penalty to pay.

What I have just described is a partial explanation why Canada exists today. The Loyalists that came there were not all Royalists as many were not even British born. Many Blacks, Germans, Dutch and other immigrant communities came to Canada because they wanted stability, often having left their own homes to get away from war. They were unwilling to stay in a new country where the people had yet to decide how they were to be governed.

So where would I have been. As a Canadian today I would have probably been a Loyalist because I prefer stability but as an " Irish catholic" I could have easily gone the other way if I had had to come to America because of what I had left at home in Ireland.

For Patriot read Rebel!..until England stopped trying to prevent the inevitable, then, perhaps, Patriot!

A Tory.

On a side note, an interesting AWI book I read stated that more men died from contracting venereal diseases caught from the local population than died in battle!

Loyalist,

for Peace, Order, and "Good Government"

TPC

Probably a patriot, but there were some pretty cool loyalists, like Simon Girty and Walter Butler.

Loyalist.

Likely in support of King and Country. Law and order if nothing else.

As an aside, king by birth or election by the masses; the difference is almost meaningless. You get what you get. The worst abusers in history were either thugs (dictators who took power via military) or were elected by popular vote and ended up screwing their own people so it is somewhat ironic.

American democracy has largely failed anyway assuming it fought against the rule of the aristocracy or some quasi-notion of freedom. Median net-worth in Congress is not less than $503,000 USD last I checked. It's collective worth is over 2 billion dollars. And how many of those actually earned it? So, again, we are still ruled by an aristocracy rather than true elected peers within the majority.

You get what you get right?

I hope Canadian readers would have stayed loyal especially based upon "having one tyrant 3,000 miles away is better than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."

And a good question, John, BTW.

MapleLeaf makes some good point. I always liked the film "Revolution". Because it is the story of a common man who is caught up in this struggle and he just wants to provide for himself and his son. He had no desire to join either side for something he saw no personal benefit in. Most people then were uneducated and had no idea of the principles involved.

If I am applying what I think today to what was going on back then, I would go with the Patriots. I am a social liberal and a fiscal agnostic.

I'd have been a Patriot and done my damndest to ensure those ingrate colonists got the thrashing they so richly deserved… :)

I do think the modern idea of conservative/liberal applies to the question. And remember that those people who point the finger at others today decrying how rich they are, are they themselves rich. The truth is that most of our modern federal government (speaking only about the US here) is out of touch with the people.

That was the same problem that the British leadership from the King on down had. They had no idea of what the colonist were facing. They were out of touch. From the little man's perspective there was no justice and no recourse for addressing grievances. Simply there was no justice in what the government was demanding from its people. Remember the line from the movie Air Force One? Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of justice,

Looking at it that way would force me to be a patriot (your term). Domestic tranquility demands justice.

BTW what is afiscal agnostic?

Which side pays better?

As an aside, king by birth or election by the masses; the difference is almost meaningless. You get what you get

There are two enormously important differences: a president has to run for office instead of automatically being installed because of birth, and a president can be removed from office by the electorate. You can't do that with a monarch.

It's interesting that the colonists are called rebels and traitors, yet by comparison, few people label the parliamentary soldiers of the ECW in that way. Sour grapes?

The ECW Situation was different. The evolution of the English Republic but with Oliver Cromwell as "Lord Protector" was probably not what most Parliamentarians fought for. Cromwell maintained his position using the methods of a dictator and i would argue that he was the only person who could ave done so at that time.

After his death the desire in England was to return to a system that they knew best which would be a Constitutional Monarch with strict controls that enabled Parliament to be the real government. This was accomplished through an alliance of both sides in their desire to avoid another Cromwell It would be then difficult to call surviving "Roundheads" traitor as many were instrumental in bringing about the Restoration.

It would be interesting to speculate what could have happened in the US if they had been unable to arrive at a constitution This could have resulted in a "Country" that was ungovernable. Individual states looking for some stability could have enter into an agreement with the British Parliament to come back into the Empire but with more local autonomy.

The US was fortunate in 1789, as it was blessed with a number of fair minded and intelligent leaders who were able to arrive at the necessary compromises to bring about the Union.

Wish I had found this thread sooner. Probably a Loyalist and even though born and raised an American, I'm beginning to think a return to the monarchy might not be such a bad idea! <grin>

I tend to agree with Dr Samuel Johnson "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Take it how you will!

As a Canadian I will with no small irony fly the flag of Rebellion and Revolution.

I much prefer the words of Thomas Paine and ideals (however flawed) of Thomas Jefferson to smug, self satisfied Georgian Toryism.

Vive le Revolution!

-TV

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Oh dear, prepare for incoming!

<<As a Canadian today I would have probably been a Loyalist because I prefer stability but as an " Irish catholic" I could have easily gone the other way if I had had to come to America because of what I had left at home in Ireland.>>

In terms of your Irish Catholicism, you would have been far more likely driven into being a Loyalist by the often quite open anti-Papism of the Rebels. The British found Maryland and Pennsylvania quite fertile recruiting grounds in terms of Irish Catholics (who were far and away the most "mobile" in terms of transferring from one army to the other during the war years). In fact, the King even temporarily suspended the proscription against Catholics holding military commissions in order to raise two Loyalist regiments from the above Colonies, and later the Volunteers of Ireland, whilst in Ireland itself, many middle class Catholics were instrumental in raising the 100th-105th regiments of Foot (the land elements of the Penal Laws were rescinded by the Gardner Act of 1778 – similar proposed legislation in England led to the Gordon Riots of 1780).

During the invasion of Canada, Wooster alienated the French Catholics by closing the churches on Xmas Eve; wary of the potential for alienating a similar group within America, Washington attended mass on Xmas Eve in Annapolis in order to woo them back (not sure how successful it was).

A third potentially anti-Royal group was the communities of former Jacobites who had settled in various parts of the 13 Colonies. However, this group also largely turned out for the Crown – Flora MacDonald, who helped Bonnie Prince Charlie flee Scotland after Culloden, actually helped to raise Loyalist forces, some of whom (I think) later became the 84th Foot.

Roughly 1 1/2% of the population were catholics, but they made up an estimated 5% of congressional/patriot/American/rebel troops

link

I'd be a Patriot. The road to Concord had Hartwell Houses next to it. They're ancestors. Plus a GGGGrandUncle was killed by the English in the Battle for Long Island. Plus, I've served my country in this lifetime, and I'm sure I would have done it a couple hundred years ago. It's in the genes.

@21e Regt.;

There are some advantages to monarchy. They've already got the best job around, so fairly incorruptible. So long as they are given an actual role in government, and limits to their powers. Ie. Must break all ties in House of Commons or Lords. Serve as Head of State and Supreme Commander, but be subject to the views of their cabinet of ministers.

The current British Monarchy does most of these, but aren't really given a true role in government.

@spontoon: this is where the whole system falls flat on it's face.
Having no active role in government, the present monarch has been reduced to the status of a rubber stamp, because to actively intervene against the excesses of the more radical politicians would cause a constitutional crisis and perhaps bring about the end of the monarchy.

Acts of Parliament cannot be questioned by the courts, Parliament is the supreme lawmaker. Therefore executive power (formerly held by the sovereign) is exercised by the Prime Minister, who in turn is answerable to party activists and not the electorate.

Without fixed term elections or limits, this has produced what is effectively and elected dictatorship.

(I duly note the opening sentence "Based on your political leanings today".)

The proof of the pudding, it is said, is in the eating. How do you really know what you would have chosen to be from the viewpoint of your comfortable 21st Century life? You are, of course, under no pressure to decide and your decision may be made from an individual position. Have you considered your family's viewpoint as well? Would that affect your decision now?

It takes a courageous man to stand up for what he believes, and he can encourage others, but once he is ‘removed' how then will the others respond? How would that affect you, perhaps on your isolated farmstead, relying on your neighbours for help?

Look at modern day examples, from former-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the ‘Arab Spring', through to the Syrian Civil War, whatever your personal viewpoint now it may have to be suppressed for the sake of your survival, your family's survival, or safeguarding your property.

I agree with Mapleleaf when he writes

Using the 20/20 vision of History it is very easy to confuse the actual events of the Revolution with the results it created … So it is easy to claim that the "Patriots" were right because of what resulted. Those who were opposed then were wrong because they are now seen as anti-democratic. That is why many now call a revolution a war for independence.

Indeed, Mapleleaf's contribution to this thread is worth taking time over to fully consider.

And in the end …we always want the government or president that we don't have at the moment.

Hmm.

I like what Mapleleaf wrote:

So being a "Loyalist" did not automatically mean that your only loyalty was to a foreign king. It could also mean that you were suspicious of the"motives" of the rebels and saw patriot leaders as rabble rousers and Liberty boys as gangs of outlaws. Probably you were in favour of law and order and the stability that allowed you to conduct your own affairs and raise your family in a system that promised protection and safety. You could also have been suspicious of the French and why they were supporting the rebels. Finally you could not be sure of what was to come preferring to keep what you had. There was fear that the British would win, as they were expected to, and that today's patriot would be tomorrow's traitor.

This would lead me to be a 'Loyalist'.

On the other hand, my parents came from Europe in the '50's as refugees from war and oppression, and I might view the British monarchy as oppressive, depending on what was happening in my neighborhood. Which leads me to being a 'Patriot'.

Upon reflection wouldn't either side see thmselves as " patriots"?

@ spontoon – I have heard it argued that the real patriots were the Native Americans, since everyone else was fighting for land they had taken from someone else (althought this got slightly muddied by folk pointing out that many of the Indians had done this, too).

Being British (despite refusing to play Royalists in ECW games) – Loyalist. I like the above comment that 'The ingrates objected to paying their share of defending the Colonies'!