"Were Loyalists Americans?" Topic

In a discussion I was asked if Loyalists were "Americans"

My answer short was no, they were British subjects living in the British Colonies. I am unaware of any Loyalists saying they were "Americans" and that the term "American" came into the popular lexicon after the war. In fact, the Loyalists that went to Canada after the Revolution were called United Empire Loyalists, not "American Loyalists."
I was told that only those "Americans" living in the rebelling thirteen colonies were included, and that colonists in Canada, West Indies, were not "American"

So, I ask those wise folks of TMP their view.

Followup question would be was the American Revolution a
"civil war"?

I would agree. Given the choice between being American and being--something else--the loyalists chose not to be American. At the same time, hundreds of Continental officers and thousands of enlisted men were born in other lands and chose to become Americans. We're a political thing, not a bloodline.

But I'd also say the AWI was a civil war, along with other things. Men who had fought in the same army in previous wars were on different sides in this one. So too members of the same legislative bodies and sometimes neighbors and family members.

Which is why it's better to confine warfare to tabletops as much as possible.

The Queens Rangers, 1st American Regiment would seem to differ.

It's an interesting question. In modern English, of course, "American" means "of the USA". What did "American" mean before 1775? Did someone from Virginia identify primarily as British, English, American or Virginian?

The AWI was definitely a civil war, and the Loyalists who chose to remain loyal to the Crown would not have thought themselves any less American than their Patriot neighbours. I disagree with Mr Piepenbrin's assertion that the Loyalists 'chose not to be American' – they were Americans who chose to be loyal to their King. They didn't choose to join the rebellion. A parallel can be seen in the ACW – no one ever suggests that the Confederates 'chose not to be American'. Just as in the AWI, there were Americans on both sides.

Some United Empire Loyalists chose to leave and move to Nova Scotia, Upper Canada or elsewhere. But many more would have remained in their home communities, and adjust to the new reality of living in a republic. Just as Mal Reynolds said, "May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong side."

I have always regarded the Revolution as a Civil War. In the south a number of Loyalist who could not afford boat passage to Canada or the Andries moved west. Most were Scots and moved to the areas in west Georgia and Alabama. Since I am from east central Alabama, I always have been interested that the county most of my relatives live in, the largest letter in the phone book was Mc. My grandmothers were McSwain or some McSween and the other was McConnel. spelled several different ways to identify families for legal documents and the mail.

They viewed themselves as Scots and not Americans or Loyalist.

Point, Major General Stanley. But what does one make of the British Legion, the Loyal Emigrants and the Volunteers of Ireland then? And what did George III mean when he announced that he had beaten "all the Americans?" (And no one ever mentions the Canadians we wound up resettling in New York, or the Yankee Nova Scotians who attacked British outposts, but were left to the British in the end.)

Canada's founding myth differs, of course, but when I look at the American Loyalists in detail, they're usually the local political outgroups. Except for a smattering of stamp agents, tea merchants and SPG ministers, they're not people bound by special ties to London, but people who lost the last election and expected to lose the next one. The more homogeneous the state, the fewer loyalists.

It is proper sometimes, I think, to say "I do not regard myself as part of this group, and will not be bound by their rules" but if, in so doing, the people of Massachusetts and Connecticut chose not to be Britons, then it's fair to say the men who rode with Tarleton chose not to be Americans.

I'd say as much about the Confederates if they had chosen exile--but you notice in the end hardly any of them did. The ships that took the Loyalists out of just Charleston could have carried the fleeing Confederates several times over, and most of them came back within five or ten years. We fought the Civil War over just what it meant to be an American. But we fought the Revolutionary War over whether there was such a thing, or only Britons born in the colonies.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a military unit's name. The British Army's 60th Regiment was called the Royal American Regiment not because it was raised in America, but for the purpose of fighting in America (against the French, before anyone had anticipated the ARW).

When did the Loyalists stop being American? After they took ship to Nova Scotia? Were they still American when they and their Patriot neighbours were burning each others' farms and tarring, feathering, lynching each other? Or was it when they chose not to join the new Republic?

I can concede that once they left the territory of the USA, they were choosing exile, and if they had no hope of return then they were no longer part of American society. But those who rode with Tarleton, or who served with other Loyalist units, would be Americans while they remained in the country.

Just for fun – was Robert Rogers an American?

Up until the Civil War very few people living in the United States considered themselves 'Americans'. They considered themselves Virginians, New Yorkers, etc. And that is where their loyalties lay.

At the start of the AWI, until the Declaration of Independence, the colonists were fighting for their rights as Englishmen. So, my guess would be no, the Loyalists considered themselves English, not Americans.

By definition a civil war is two factions fighting over control of the government. You could argue that since the colonists replaced the royal governors with elected governors and the king with a congress that it was a civil war. It was certainly a rebellion.

What about those Americans who left The United States in the years between the War of Independence and the War of 1812? Those drawn to Canada less by loyalty to the crown than cheap land and lower taxes? Were they still Americans? They were American enough for the British authorities to be seriously concerned about their loyalty at the beginning of the war of 1812. As it turned out those recently Americans were for the most part indifferent to the war or turned against the US because of the conduct of American troops. Indeed, it helped unite the American loyalist and settler populations in Canada in a way that did not exist before. The Loyalists were Americans, some of them dreamed of a return back home after their fellow Americans had "come to their senses". The term Canadian referred to French-Canadians at the time. The American colonies before the war of independence included Nova Scotia, Quebec, Newfoundland, PEI and New Brunswick. They did not cease to be England's American colonies simply because they remained loyal.

It began when people began to refer themselves as colonials and started to think about doing things their own way rather than to wait for an answer from the government back in London.

The American identity was born from the Wars of Religion and the Enlightenment. Events that shook up every certainty people had held for centuries. Religion was no longer a singular monolithic block, people were free to seek their own truths. This helped to bring along the Enlightenment where people began to question everything rather than parrot the wisdom of Ancient Greece and Rome as had been the practice.

It's much in the same way people feel they are both Dutch, German or French, but also European. To some the idea of being European is highly repulsive. And it's not some deviancy, my own great-grandmother would rather have died of hunger than to cross the street and buy a loaf of bread from "That scum living on the wrong side of the street"

A street can be a mental divide as much as an ocean.

I don't think there was a clear-cut "American" identity. Was there a new, distinctive identity ? Yes, malleable, ill-defined, a sense of "us vs them" a certain idea of "doing things our way." Pervaded the community. Even those who were more "British than the British" were in search of an identity in a new world.

So Americans ? Yes, kinda but very broad and ill-defined. The true sense of Americans vs the British came after the War when the new nation looked for an identity and everyone was re-written as an American and Patriot, except for Benedict Arnold, because you need a good traitor and villain as part of your national myth.

I think Rogers--and at one point Ben Franklin--were Americans the way I'm a Hoosier and a German-American. It was a subordinate loyalty. Neither had been living in the 13 colonies for years before the Revolution until returning in 1775. It's not too hard to see the "alternate history" in which Franklin ends his days in London and Rogers is a founding member of the Society of the Cincinnati.

But the overall point is that you define yourself when you have to choose. Those who thought the Revolution a bad idea for whatever reason but, once it was successful, were loyal to the new government were Americans. Others, faced with the same choice, took ship for Canada. But pretty much by definition, Loyalists thought a British identity trumped an American one, even if they thought of themselves as Americans at all.

As for the specific case of the Carolina backcountry, where you find most of the burnings and hangings, I don't think we've got a good handle on that one even yet. My own suspicion is that it was largely a clash between affinities who hadn't gotten on well in Ireland or Scotland either, aided by a complete breakdown of government. But that's a view of the matter incompatible with both the American and the Canadian views of our origins.

Did the British living in Colonial India consider themselves Indians?
Ditto every other colonist everywhere else? No. They considered themselves British.

The decision to call oneself an "American" was significant— it was a statement of affiliation and loyalty and even mindset that was separate from one's traditional heritage or culture. Even the title Patriot, which was certainly current among the rebels, is a statement of difference, as "patriotism" means "love of one's country"— which, for the Patriots, clearly did NOT mean Great Britain. No, the country they were declaring their love for was "America—" which at that time was not much further along than an idea.

As for the Loyalists being loyal to a king, well okay. But it strikes me that while that has an emotional ring to it, in reality it's kind of a dumb idea— why the heck should you be loyal to someone just because of who their daddy or mommy was (or, in most cases, great-great-great-granddaddy twice removed)? In our day in modern Western Civilization, a monarch is largely nothing more than a symbol— a flag that can occasionally give a decent speech. The idea of the monarchy has certain political cache, too which the people and the politicians give a deference as a statement of national unity, and that's pretty much as far as it goes. But in that day the monarch held actual political power, even in parliamentary Britain. To oppose the monarch was not only to oppose a symbol, but to oppose specific political actions and policies and the government which carried them out. Loyalty to a king is not noble if that king pursues injustice.

Clearly we have varied opinions. To me it was a civil war, it split my family literally in two, 1 half in Pennsylvania, 1 half in NJ. The Pennsylvania branch embraced the cause of independence, the NJ branch remained loyal to the crown to the end, and were marched out and re-patriated into the NewBrunswick area of Canada.

robert – I can see your point on Rogers but I think you're a bit hard on Franklin. He spent years away from home, but he was (officially at least) representing Pennsylvania in London. I say this as a person who has travelled, lived and worked internationally – I was an expat, but never gave up my national identity.

Anyway, as Clay points out, we each have our own opinions. I respect that you've taken your position and are ready to defend it. My opinion is that the Loyalists were and remained Americans at least until the end of the war. Had the revolution failed, then the Loyalists would have remained Americans.

Parzival – I think you may have it backwards. Loyalty to the Crown was less about loyalty to the person sitting o the throne than it was to the entire system, including Parliament, government, trade relations and so on. The fat, mad bloke on the throne didn't generate as much loyalty as the fact that his government or its predecessors had established the colonies, fought to expand the colonies, and defended the colonies when they were threatened by outside powers.

"robert – I can see your point on Rogers but I think you're a bit hard on Franklin. He spent years away from home, but he was (officially at least) representing Pennsylvania in London."

I just finished Rick Atkinson's book "The British Are Coming" and he goes into some detail that Franklin's loyalty to the American cause was in doubt because of the time he'd spent in England, the people he mixed with, and the arguments he'd made.

Franklin. This treads closer to politics than I like to go on TMP, but many residents of large portions of the United States have had their "representatives" go native on them, even with modern communications. Unless I'm misinformed, most of those who lost congressional seats in the last few election cycles found new jobs in DC rather than suffer the indignity of returning to their nominal homes.

When the Stamp Act passed, Franklin was much more concerned with securing jobs administering it for his political paymasters than he was with the number of American newspapers it was intended to shut down. It was only when he realized the scale of the opposition to the act in a country he hadn't seen in years that he started shifting his position.

As things fell out, the nation owes Franklin a huge debt of gratitude. But I can imagine things falling out differently.

Thanks for the extra info, robert. On the one hand, I think discussing actions of Mr Franklin 250 years ago counts more as 'history' than 'politics' (and drawing parallels between the actions of 18th Century and 21st Century politicians is fraught as the moral and legal climates have both evolved significantly). But I think the conversation is veering off quite a bit from the OP!

With respect even if I disagree with your position, Will

It comes down to that one country, then nascent, acaparing the name of a continent for itself.

@ Jcfrog: Well, yes, but at the time the name was made, there was a high possibility of Canada joining the fight as the 14th colony. As for the rest of the continent, it had already been given a name by a European mapmaker without consideration of anyone else, and other parts were at that time claimed by France and Spain, and largely inhabited by non-Europeans who had little to no knowledge that anyone had given the continent a name (if they even had a grasp that there were such things as "continents" or that they lived on one). So I doubt anyone actually living outside the colonies at the time really cared one way or the other what name the newly born nation claimed for itself. It's not like the Patriots were claiming a term that anyone else would claim. It was simply the name they had embraced for their region, based on the name for the continent. By the way, even the name "United States of America" is not a claim to the continent, but a statement of location as much as identity.

I'm sorry, Jcfrog. "Acaparing?" I have no idea, and neither google nor dictionaries are helping.

But Parzival's right. We named ourselves the United States, much as the Low Countries were and are the United Provinces. The United Kingdom, the United States of Mexiso and the Confederate States would follow. Calling the inhabitants "Americans" is a convenient shorthand used in the English-speaking world and sometimes elsewhere. (South of the Rio Grande I am a Norteamericano, if not something worse.) It's not as though we claimed a copyright.

Starting in 1776--when the term was already in use, mind you--what would you suggest for an alternative?

Loyal American Regiment.

And Benedict Arnold's "American Legion" which not even the British would call "Loyal."