"What is the best term to use?" Topic

Hi there,

I am painting up my Americans for the American Revolution, and got to thinking…

…What is the most accurate term to use for them?

Rebels (People who rise in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or leader.)

Patriots (People who vigorously support their country and are prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.)

Revolutionaries (People who advocate or engage in political revolution.)

Personally I think Rebels is best, as a Patriot would surely be one supporting the King, at least till 1783?

Just a bit of fun really, but I wonder what you think?

The "Lobster Backs" often enough simply called us "Doodles," which I rather like.

Otherwise, "Colonists" would be a not very exciting, but accurate, alternative.

"Patriots" is actually what was used much of the time. The risk of confusing who was a "Patriot" is avoided by remembering that those who stuck with the Crown were called "Loyalists."

But, bottom line, "Rebels" is what we were (ARE!), and proud to be so.

Put THAT in your tea, King George!

TVAG

Ahhh 🤔🤔🤔 "Winners". 😉

Well, I suppose that Rebels sounds better than League of Traitors Against Your Rightful King – I think Patriot is probably more accurate as many of the Americans were not trying to up-end the overall social order but rather to make things more home grown

On my Dad's side I guess you would call them Unwillling Troopers dragooned into serving for the British by their callous German overlords – who once the shooting stopped decided the new country was a fair bit better than going bck to Germany

The term at the time was Patriot; that's what they called themselves, and they won, so their preference wins out.

The British government and officers may have called them "Rebels," but who cares what a bunch of snobby, tyrannical aristocrats think? Or for that matter, the poor shlubs who had to fight under their orders…

And "Rightful King" according to whom? The Stuart line had a legit complaint there… but then, all "king" means is that somebody's daddy boinked somebody's mommy, and the mewling babe that resulted somehow gets labeled as "special" because of it. :P [/Snark]
The American Patriots were right to reject that, and nothing in history before or since has proved them wrong.

Hooray for the Patriots! Boo for the Redcoats, the Tories and Hessian Aggression!

The "Lobster Backs" often enough simply called us "Doodles," which I rather like.

Me too, I may well declare this a winner…unless anyone knows different!

I'd go with Patriot--and with Loyalist for the proto-Canadians. Neither term was intended to be offensive, and in those days prior to nation-states, "patriot" had a flavor of democracy and populism. Hence Johnson's quip about "patriotism" being the last refuge of scoundrels.

I don't believe a loyal Briton at home or abroad would have referred to himself as a "patriot" in those years. He'd have been a loyal or faithful subject. Hence "loyalist."

"Doodles" was certainly used in the War of 1812, and I would assume in the Revolution--but only by opponents. It would be perfectly proper for you to call the Americans doodles or rebels--if you were speaking as British commander. And it would be equally appropriate for the American commander to refer to his opponents as lobsterbacks, tories and hirelings--oh, and savages, of course, on the frontier.

The Revolutionary War song (lyrics possibly written by no less than Ben Franklin), "Old Soldiers Of The King" uses "Doodles," so pre-dates the Next War.

Also, it was common practice to use "Yankee Doodle" (written as a slur and put-down of "Americans" in general) to be adopted and played/sung at the "King's Own Regulars," so adopting "Doodles" for themselves might just be another way to throw it right back in their faces.

"Only GOD is "King!"

TVAG

This is an interesting question because, while there was a Continental Army financed by the congress in Philadelphia, a lot of activity was in the separate colonial militias. The colonies were independent and wary of it. Many had their own navies, and of course the privateers were important. So there were a lot of people fighting against the British who would have been averse to any particular term.

It's a crazy period. It's amazing it worked.

Such a pleasure to see the term 'boink' resume its rightful place.

Rebellious Patriotic Colonial Separatists of the American States? RPCSoAS for short.

I use the term "Continentals."

+1 Andrew!

Continentals, I believe, would refer to soldiers raised by the Continental Congress only, if you want to be technical. That is my understanding.

I agree with 35thOVI.

I am consistently inconsistent. Sometimes it is "Americans". If Congress could use it in 1774 and 1775, and if Thomas Paine could use it in 1776 then so can I. Sometimes it is "Colonists". Sometimes it is "Rebels", especially when referring to the militia. If I am going to be formal from July 1776 onwards they are U.S.

You're close enough, rusty. There are some interesting marginal cases about being raised, but "Continentals" applies only to full-time soldiers not being paid by the Continental Congress. Full-time troops not being paid by the states were "state line," and if you were only not being paid for a matter of days or months you were militia or levies.

I'll still hesitate on "doodle" as a self-description. It is, after all, short of "Yankee doodle" and from New York City south, few of the patriots would self-describe as Yankees.

Well, whatever you call them, don't put any battle streamers on their flags!

Before July 4, 1776 – Rebels

After July 4, 1776 – Americans

I only use the term Continental to describe actual Continental units in the American army. There are also state and militia units.

However when there are only Americans fighting on both sides of a particular battle I use the terms Rebels and Loyalist. Could use Patriots but I consider both sides as patriotic to their cause.

They called themselves Patriots. That would be the term to use. They did not see themselves as rebels but protecting their English rights that were threaten by Parliament. Later, after declaring their independence Patriot was even more the way they saw themselves.

Rebels is what the Crown called them. Patriots is post Declaration of Independence. How can you be a patriot of a country that doesn't exist yet?

I'd go with "Colonials"

If you are going to go with "Doodles", you should look up "Macaronis" to see the basis of the insult… ;-)

Militant tax evaders?

I tend to call them the Blue ones… :-)

OC, that's so 21st Century and legalistic--but I repeat myself. Voting on something or issuing a decree neither creates nor destroys a country. Both have been tried repeatedly.

And it's not contemporary usage. Quoting Merriam Webster:
"The years leading up to the American Revolutionary War further propagated the notion of patriot as a name for a seditious rebel against the monarchy. American writers of the 18th century, however, heartily embraced the word to define the colonists who took action against British control. As tensions continued to escalate, a new meaning of patriot came to the forefront, referring to a person who advocates or promotes the independence of their land or people from the country of which they are a colony. Benjamin Franklin provides an early record of this use." It then goes on to quote Franklin from 1773.

Patriots is correct. It is what they called themselves.

Putting on my serious hat, I believe that "patriotism" really meant "love of one's native land" (or in certain contexts, one could love one's "adoptive land"— that is, a land one may not have been born in but have embraced as home.") In general, I suspect the term applies. The Loyalists were not loyal to America as a concept— they were loyal to the king, and by extension the British government. America was merely where they lived.
The Patriots, however, were fighting for their own way of life and their own autonomy— a situation they had largely enjoyed without much question for nearly a century or more. Though their governors were appointed by the king, the various colonies enjoyed the right to elect their own legislative bodies, and of course the local regional divisions also were able to vote on their own laws. Parliament largely ignored them, because they had no presence there at all.
The Seven Years War changed all that— Parliament now saw the Americas as someplace they had to defend, but also a place of considerable wealth they could tax. But even the obligation to be taxed was not opposed by the American people at large— to call the American War of Independence a "tax revolt" is to miss the whole point and ignore what the Americans were saying. "No taxation without representation" has two parts; it's not the taxation that was the crux of the issue, it was that the American citizens had no say in it.
Parliament could have solved the whole damn thing by giving the colonists equal representation in Parliament as the people of England, et al.. But Parliament didn't want to dilute their power, powerful people always being terrified that voters won't pick them again. (Which is exactly how they should feel, by the way. It's called "accountability to the electorate." That seat of power should not be comfortable, ever. But I digress…)

Besides, the war didn't start over taxes or even representation. The unrest did, but that was just one of many issues. The war started when the British soldiers were sent to seize the weapons and powder stores of the colonial militia, which the militia maintained as a defense against Indian uprisings and invasion (one of which had happened just ten years previous!). The British military governor occupying Boston saw as these stores as a threat against the crown.
It was the deliberate attempt to remove the colonists' capacity for communal self-defense which started the war. Maybe Gage was right— maybe war was coming anyway, and he "needed" to reduce the stores available for rebellion— but at that time, there was no rebellion. There was merely active dissent and a lot of loud talking. Frankly, Gage should have tried to negotiate with the leaders of the dissenting populace and found a way to resolve things. On the other hand, he was some what restrained by Parliament's refusal to be reasonable themselves. In any case, he staged the raid and it blew up in his face— and at that point the American Revolution was off and running. And Gage might as well have touched the flame to the powder himself.

As it is, "Patriot" as the term for the American rebel forces is now time-honored by history and generally understood by everybody immediately. If it sticks in the craw of the British player, well it's supposed to. Hey, you chose to play the lobsterbacks, you lousy Tory!

@Parzival this all sounds Vaguely familiar. I have this sudden feeling of Déjà vu. 😉

We just refer to them (anachronistically) as Americans and British. :)

The Good Guys and the Bad Guys! Until WWI, and from then on they're both the Good Guys.

The alternative would be Whigs and Tories, which one sees in old books sometimes.

In the block buster epic "Lafayette", I first came across the term "insurgents." It's always rather stayed with me.

(Together with the close-up shot of elastic-sided boots stepping off a gabion in the climactic daylight assault at Yorktown)

Just a quick point. Yankees only come from New England States. To be a true bona fide "Yankee" you must be able to trace your American ancestry back to New England before the AWI. I am a true Yankee, despite the fact I now live in Seattle. My roots go deep into CT, VT, NH, and MA.

Here's a tune I came across that was recorded by a NH ACW vet. who remembered his mum singing it.

Yankee Doodle took a saw
with patriot's devotion
to trim the tree of Liberty
according to his notion.

Yankee Doodle keep it up etc.

He set himself upon a limb,
just like some other Noodle,
and cut between the tree and him,
and down came Yankee Doodle.

Yankee Doodle keep it up etc.

Yankee Doodle broke his neck,
and every bone about him,
and now the Tree of Liberty
does very well without him…