"Why Did the Colonists Fight When They Were Safe..." Topic

…Prosperous, and Free?

Of possible interest?

Free to read

PDF link

Armand

Why, to STAY that way, of course.

Revolutions do not happen, generally, when things are getting worse, but when things are getting better, but not fast enough. At least, that is what I was taught, 50+ years ago. One can no doubt find exceptions.

Remember Tango, only a little over a 1/3 wanted to do that. Around 1/3 fought for the king and another roughly 1/3 just wanted to be left alone. Probably true in every situation like this.

I think there were two important factors; the first was the British state finances were in a mess after the SYW and they introduced a number of taxes/duties on the colonies to help pay for the costs of maintaining military forces in North America – and while it was actually a fraction of what British citizens were paying (I think in Pennsylvania it was 1/36th of what an equivalent person in Britain would have paid) it was certainly more than they had paid – and the colonies had no voice in it; had the British government done thinks like, say, establishing an American peerage and giving the colonies seats in Parliament they might have felt differently

The article rather highlights the weakness of purely economic theories as sufficient cause of any war. The three navigation acts of the 1650s were targetted against the Dutch not the American colonies, which produced far more than they consumed (in tobacco, sugar, cotton, rice, molasses etc.) – and so needed an overseas market. (Btw, I have never understood why Britain wanted tea from the Americas when we were already awash with it from the Indian sub-continent). That aside, taxation without representation is irksome to any governing class espousing the principles of the Enlightenment; which the Virginia aristocracy did, unless it concerned chattel slavery.

My guess is the loyalists were never as well organized or led. Also, on the whole, were probably less experienced with weapons then their colonial counterparts.

I agree with Gus. Adams got the three groups correct, but some historians (my dissertation director Bill Abbott, and now me) think it was more like 10% strongly committed Patriots, 5% equally committed Loyalists, and 85% trying to stay neutral. But effective propaganda (Tom Paine, etc) and British blunders (e.g. use of Hessians and Indians) and the militia system which forced commitment, enabled the Patriot minority to do a far better job of mobilizing the population (politcally and militarily) than the Brits.

Actually the old 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 has been proven to be false. Modern research places it as more 50% patriot, 25% loyalist and 25% neutral. Loyalists were always in the minority where ever you went so how could they be in equal numbers as patriots?

I understand that because they thought they'd sweep the rebellion away both quickly and easily, the British badly mistreated, dismissed and looked down on early and enthusiastic Loyalist support. When the Crown finally realized that they could indeed use additional support, the initial Loyalist support, which had by then had several years to hear about the privations of the war, had melted away.

We cannot overestimate how much British arrogance played in allowing the patriots to succeed.

@Grattan and @Doc that may well be true. But how do we really know one way or another. Some say the 1/3 others something else, but as you all stated, there were no polls. So everything is based on Supposition, true?

The 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 business was a comment on French opinions in the French Revolution.

And it wasn't just the taxes that inflamed people it was the way they were levied. The Stamp Act, for instance, required payment in hard currency, and British currency at that. Hard currency was scarce enough in the Colonies, British currency was even tighter, since much of the specie in circulation was French, Spanish, Dutch, and even Austrian (Indian subsidies were paid in Maria Therese thalers, since the Indians thought highly of the "lady coins"). British coin was exchanged at such a high rate that it could be worth ten to twelve times that of the usual Colonial notes commonly in circulation. While much is made by the apologists of the low cost of the stamps, the requirement for payment in the King's coinage made a joke if that.

35th, first, you act as though polls are reliable! Hah!!

But we have a bit more than supposition. For example, there were thousands of pension applications submitted. What they reveal varies from state to state but typically (Virginia, the ones I have looked at most closely) require sworn-under-oath details of service: dates, names of commanders, etc. (That was because few actual records survived.)

You find things like a guy recounting how he and a dozen fellow militiamen met their Continental draft obligation by forming a posse and hunting down a deserter up in the mountains, to return him to the army.

The Patriot control of the mechanisms of state and local government, and especially the militia system, gave them a huge edge in mobilization. There was far more participation than there was enthusiasm.

and I agree about British arrogance

Thanks.

Armand

@Doc come on man!! You know me better than that. 😉 you know that of anyone, I would never believe polls a reliable source. I'm just saying we only know what we read. A source says 1/3, another that there were more colonials. But no one than did a count, or a door to door; "I say sir. Are you pro or anti King old man?".

The pensions we have are from colonials, I doubt many Loyalists filed them. So those numbers would seem to be Skewed, I would think. 😉

I still tend to believe that initially it was still probably 30% pro king, 30% pro rebellion and 30% just leave me alone. 10% didn't know who the king was, what country controlled the Colonies or what their colonies name was, just like today. 😉

I believe as the war progressed, more of the "just leave me alone", went over to one side or another, probably colonial. So in the end you would have had more ex colonials filing pensions. 10% still would not know a war was going on, nor what armies were fighting. But they knew Rum was buy 1 get 1 free at the local tavern.🙂

I admit I could be wrong.
Maybe Rum was not buy 1 get 1 free. 😉

35th, in E PLURIBUS UNUN Forrest MacDonald says the Carolina backwoods Loyalists (ex-Regulators) were "loyal to a king who, for all they knew, might only have been a rumor."

Good point about Loyalist pensions.

Why did they fight when they were safe?

Because they were safe. No threat from the French so why do we need Britain? The question answers itself.

(smile)

Armand

Guys I guess you better stop talking about those "Colonials", they have been deemed offensive and non inclusive. 😉

Subject: Colonials No More: George Washington University to Stop Using Nickname by 2023-24

link

Well, we sure don't miss y'all over here; and, to be honest, our bankrupt nation under a German king really bit off more than it could chew (bankrupt bc we were stil paying for the War of Spanish Succession when the Seven Years War broke out). But guys, couldn't you at least have had the decency to take Canada with you?

Hey Regicide –

You should be thankful your "faithful" colonies backed you during two World Wars! And we have helped pay for the Royals to support their lifestyle as well so…

@regicide My God man! You fostered meghan markle and prince harry on us! Is there never an end to Britain's vengeance!! 😂

"we have helped pay for the Royals to support their lifestyle as well so"

I don't think so. They made over Crown lands and taxation rights to the government and get given pocket money in return.

I have a problem with the "Colonists were safe" argument. In 1774 Virginia had to mobilize an army to fight the Shawnee. In 1771 Colonial North Carolina had to mobilize an army to fight the Regulator movement by Piedmont settlors.

I think "safe" here means politically, in terms of rights. The Shawnees didn't threaten that, though the Regulators thought the wealthy planters did. But yes, colonial America was a tumultuous place.

I read, decades ago, a list of colonial uprisings, and between 1609 and 1770 or so there were more than 100, of which about half succeeded, or initially succeeded (e.g. Bacon's Rebellion in 1676). Insurrections are as American as apple pie.

"I have a problem with the "Colonists were safe" argument. In 1774 Virginia had to mobilize an army to fight the Shawnee. In 1771 Colonial North Carolina had to mobilize an army to fight the Regulator movement by Piedmont settlors."

The didn't need the British to fight Indians.

(smile)

Armand