 |
| |
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Well,
I want the facts seperated from the myths, so here are what may turn out to be a fact of a myth.
The rules are, all sources cannot be from either the US or the UK.
To make any proud Americans blood boil, a BBC 4 parter about 2-4 years ago stated some unusal "facts" on the war, my memory is crap, so I hope the Beeb doesn't sue this licence fee holder.....!
Dr. David Starkey stated that the Colonies ended up paying 1/100th the taxation my ansestors paid in the modern UK, whilst doing the same job.
He also said in this 4 parter that an agitator in Boston only became so once he realised his tea-smuggling ships now sat outside the harbour, with tea costing more than the now tax-free ships coming in.
Two million Americans voted with their feet and went elsewhere once the war was won, meaning that at best, the war was won with a maximum support of 40-50% at best, and at all times.
I personsally am pleased World History panned out in the way it did, but even aged 20 I felt "No taxatation without representation" was by far the best war-cry of those that wished independence above the majority.
My ancestors wanted it as well.
The chap also mentioned in detail the British refusing to allow exansion Westwards in case the native peoples got even more angry, and cited it as a major cause of frustration for all, pro and anti.
Washington was refused an Officership, which cost the royals dearly, and left him resentful, that was a costly mistake to the monarchy, and repeated to this day by the Army as it still is class-based to a larger extent.
(All of this is based upon the German-English vote that never happened in the US, that I posted in the London bombing thread of which page I can no longer see, on the following page and a reply- so here is the perfect chance to rid ourselves of myths and gain facts, I learn't that myth, then forgot it was thus when a US chap pointed me to a myth and fact site!).
Toby
Last edited by Toby Rowe on 30-07-2005 at 07:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
It is kinda hard to hide a migration of 2 million people at the population levels seen at the end of the 18th century. Where did all these people go?
I am prepared to believe that most residents of the 13 colonies weren't interested in independence but to believe that 50% were so passionately opposed to independance that they all uprooted and fled to distant parts after the war was won seems more than a little fishy to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Cheers BlackCat
- you are a not from Britain or the US, give us the Danish take on it- a Danish Professor is as valid as a Dutch, French or British one.
I nearly choked on some of the stuff I listened to within the series, simply as I didn't know what to believe- The bloke above could have been British or English- this is one were an outside viewpoint is welcome- and not for brownie points.
I want alternative sources of information- your nation is such a source.
Odin,
Dr David Starkey viewed it in a very different way- I know taxation was way lower than us peasants in England, and that we also had no representation- I want- to make this clear- the perspective of professors and teachers of OTHER nations on this- Starkey called it the First US Civil War in summary.
Sorry Odin, I want other perpectives, not ours as Britons who care not and Yanks who do!!
Toby :-)
(Higher level material, not a "concise history of......") that is!
Last edited by Toby Rowe on 30-07-2005 at 08:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
As far as I have been taught, at the beginning of the war, the factions were fairly evenly split royalist, neutral, and rebel. So support probably was even less than 40-50%. However, as the war went on, the rebels gained a slightly greater measure of support.
2 million people moving seems like an unrealistically high number. IIRC, there were only 4 million people in the 1800 census entire.
The expansion westward bit is true, more or less.
With regard to Washington personally, I doubt any perceived slight had that much impact. The whole American elite felt slighted one way or another by the Brits, so it was just a drop in the bucket.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
2 Million seems too high a number, but a significant portion of the population was actively Loyalist, and one has to assume another fair chunk simply wanted nothing to do with the situation and just wanted to be left alone. |
That is a fair quote- even I took the assumption that it was one or other- the indifferent quota are getting even more important in the UK to the point of hand-wringing in the UK by all parties, they now have a joint-committee on this issue.
Well said.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Only about 10 to 15 thousand left the US after the war.
One of the prime instigators of the Independence movement was Sam Adams, whose primary beef was his father's rough treatment by the authorities when he got over his head in debt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
As far as I have been taught, at the beginning of the war, the factions were fairly evenly split royalist, neutral, and rebel. So support probably was even less than 40-50%. However, as the war went on, the rebels gained a slightly greater measure of support.
2 million people moving seems like an unrealistically high number. IIRC, there were only 4 million people in the 1800 census entire.
The expansion westward bit is true, more or less.
With regard to Washington personally, I doubt any perceived slight had that much impact. The whole American elite felt slighted one way or another by the Brits, so it was just a drop in the bucket. |
Hi Dan,
Ok, I learn't Washington was mightily angry, as I would also be upon discovering you wanted to join a closed club, but unable to do so due to an arrogant officer.
However, he changed history, not the tea smugglers or taxes, once something else went wrong- I wish it were taxation without represtention but the roots seemed much more firmly placed before- Westward expansion is what I think of- 100% of the population wanted it, 100% of the court denied it- whilst the population cramming needed it in human geography terms.
The 2 million or so figure is I'm sure correct- where are the Canadians with info of their Census as apparently most went North.
We also mustn't lose sight of the fact that we view History from our democratic nations today- back then, nobody had democracy anywhere, a Briton was hung for stealing more than 6 pence in goods, between 2 pennies and 6 he or she was sent to the colonies, less than that they actually went to a British prison instead.
I'd hate to steal, but if I was gonna die of hunger, even I'd do it- (trying to) Put yourself into the shoes of those who lived it is the key.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
Not really not British, but here is a view from the North for your edification, Toby.
http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Ca...e_loyalists.htm
quote:
The story of the United Empire Loyalists really began with the prolonged fighting known as the French and Indian War, the American part of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) in which British and some colonial troops protected the Thirteen Colonies, and finally, with the fall of Quebec, took possession of the French colony of Quebec (stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Detroit -- "the straits" -- in the heartland of the continent) which lay ominously north of the British colonies and their anticipated frontier.
With the capture of Quebec, England, mother of the Thirteen Colonies of America, but heavily in debt, unwisely resorted to the infamous Stamp Act to help meet her obligations; the colonists found themselves free of the threat from the north, but with anti-monarchist elements anxious to make the most of the taxation-without-representation grievances.
Conditions were perhaps tolerable when the agitators professed to be seeking only constitutional change and men of standing such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington claimed they were not seeking complete independence.
But, when open rebellion became apparent, surely the Loyalists' right to support what they felt most worthy of allegiance, became a duty and deserved the respect of honourable men.
However, the vociferous and organized minority with its Association Test and Committees of Safety soon subjected the Loyalists to indignities, imprisonment, confiscation of property, and death. In addition, many thousands of colonists, well-established, content, and without strong political convictions, who would have been happy to stay neutral, but, who, fearful of losing their property, their worldly goods, and even their lives, took the Association Test and declared for the rebels.
In the end, might was right, and tens of thousands of Loyalists left the Thirteen Colonies to return to England, to settle in the West Indies, and in the other North American Colonies.
Approximately 30,000 Loyalists settled in the Maritimes and 10,000 in the Colony of Quebec (including many in what is now the Canadian Province of Ontario). Those Loyalists coming from the east to this region were transported up the rapid-filled St. Lawrence River in sturdy, flat-bottomed bateaux to the general area where they were to settle. The raw land granted to them by the Crown was to replace the well-developed farms they had lost, left behind.
After division of the land by surveyors and the random drawing of lots, the families, with a tent and a few tools and modest supplies issued to them by the King, proceeded to their forest properties. The first task was to build a log shanty to provide shelter for the first winter. These huts were small, only 10 or 12 feet long, built of round logs, and frequently with only a hole in the roof to serve as a chimney.
This crude beginning was followed by labourious clearing the land, building of a log house, and cultivation of the virgin soil. All of these advances were accomplished with extreme hardship, primitive tools, great determination, and faith in British institutions.
Other insights:
The American Revolution (1775-1783) created not one country but two. Without the infusion of almost 60,000 American Loyalists into the remaining British North American colonies, what was to become Canada could have offered little resistance to the expansion of the American Republic.
Canada has been the haven for many political refugees, of which the United Empire Loyalists were first.
Representing a wide mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds originally from Europe, settlers in the American Colonies since the early 1600s, they brought with them to the future Canada their common loyalty to the Crown, their respect for the rule of law, and their determination to make new lives for themselves and their families.
The multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicity of the Loyalists is often ignored and they are stereotyped as 'English' because of their support of the Crown and their spoken language. But in a review of its members' records, the Toronto Branch of the U.E.L found where national origin of a member's Loyalist ancestor could be ascertained, 28 percent were originally from Germany, 23 percent from Scotland,18 percent from England, 12 percent from Ireland, 8 percent from Holland, 5 percent from France,4 percent from Wales, 1 percent from Switzerland and less than 1 percent from Denmark and Sweden.
In what has been called the 'first' American Civil War, more than 50 provincial corps of Loyal Americans opposed the rebellion. Loyalist corps were raised in all colonies from Georgia to Massachusetts and fought with the British throughout the war. To name only a few, there were the 1st Battalions of DeLancey's Brigade, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of Skinner's New Jersey Volunteers, Simcoe's Queen's Rangers (1st American Regiment), the Pennsylvania Loyalists and the Maryland Loyalists. These and other Loyalist corps fought in the skirmishes and battles around New York City, Philadelphia and in the southern colonies until hostilities ended at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781.
In the Northern Department, Sir John Johnson's King's Royal Regiment of New York, Butler's Rangers, Jessup's Loyal Rangers and McLean's Royal Highland Emigrants 84th Regiment, were raised from among the Loyalists of the northern frontier. The troops of the Northern Department were stationed at posts from Sorel, east of Montreal, to Fort Michilimackinac. They fought in General Burgoyne's campaign that ended at Saratoga and led many excursions into the Mohawk Valley of New York Province. In most of these forays they were joined by Iroquois Indians led by legendary chiefs such as Joseph Brant and John Deseronto.
During the hostilities, Loyalists had left the colonies for England, Florida, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Nova Scotia and
Quebec. It is estimated that 100,000 American colonists, loyal to the Crown, were driven into exile by persecution, confiscation of their properties and threats upon their lives.
At the end of the war, Sir Guy Carleton, later Lord Dorchester, was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the British forces and was responsible for the evacuation of the troops and Loyalists remaining in New York City.
Approximately 35,000 Loyalist troops and civilian Loyalists, 'Incorporated' or 'Associated' into groups, were transported to Nova Scotia by ship. The influx of disbanded troops and Loyalists into the St. John River valley brought demands for their own government. In 1784, the 'Loyalist' Province of New Brunswick was separated from Nova Scotia and Thomas Carleton, brother of Sir Guy Carleton, was appointed Governor.
In the spring of 1784, 6,000 of the 10,000 disbanded troops and Loyalists who had gathered in Quebec, were settled in townships along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, west of Montreal, and around the Bay of Quinte. Some 900 'Associated' Loyalists, the Van Alstine and Grass groups, who were taken by ship from New York City to Quebec where they wintered at Sorel, were settled on the bay of Quinte (at Adolphustown and Kingston). Butler's Rangers, stationed at Fort Niagara, had settled some Loyalists across the Niagara River in what later became Ontario as early as 1781, and when disbanded in 1784, settled mainly in the Niagara Peninsula and along the north shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.
Transportation, provisioning, and settlement of the disbanded troops and civilian Loyalists was conducted by the military establishment. The method of raising troops and assembling the civilian groups had brought together neighbours, friends, and relatives who were later settled together for their mutual benefit.
On the 9th of November 1789, in Council at Quebec City, Lord Dorchester, Governor-in-Chief of British America, gave particular recognition to the 'First Loyalists' by differentiating them from other Loyalists and settlers, (i.e. 'Late' Loyalists, 'Treasury' Loyalists, 'Simcoe' Loyalists, and from regular British and German soldiers who were considered to be 'Military Claimants').
The Dorchester Resolution approved by the Council defined the 'U.E.L. Loyalists' as those:
"who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and joined the Royal Standard in America before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783".
"Put a mark of Honour upon the Families" of the U.E. Loyalists.
Approved the granting by the Land Boards of 200 acres of land (without fees) to the sons and daughters of the
U.E. Loyalists.
Accompanying the resolution to London to be laid before the King, was attached a "Form of Militia Roll for the Western Districts to discriminate the Families before mentioned "which included the following heading:
"N.B. Those Loyalists who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and Joined the Royal Standard [in America]
before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783, and all their Children and their Descendants by either sex, are to be distinguished by the following Capitals, affixed to their names: 'U.E.' Alluding to their great principle 'The Unity of the Empire'.
In the covering letter, Lord Dorchester explained: "Care has been taken to reward the spirit of loyalty and industry, to extend and transmit it to future generations…".
The Loyalists in the newly settled western part of Quebec were not satisfied to be governed by the terms of the Quebec Act of 1774. Their petitions for English civil law, freehold tenure of land and elected assembly brought about the separation of the Old Province of Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada in 1791, with John Graves Simcoe, former colonel of the Queen's Rangers (1st American Regiment), as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, now Ontario.
From 1783 to 1812, the U.E. Loyalists of Upper Canada were joined by many U.E. Loyalists from the Maritime
provinces; by 'late' Loyalists who may have supported the Crown but who were not within the British lines until after 1783; and those who came to swear allegiance to the Crown to escape what one settler termed the "Chaos, Taxes and Anarchy" of the new republic.
When the United States declared war on Great Britain in 1812, Upper Canada had a population of nearly 100,000, four-fifths of whom were American-born. The Upper Canada Militia and Indians who joined the British regular troops to resist the invasion were defending their homes and farms, as had their fathers and grandfathers in the American Revolution. Their success in turning back the invaders who would have severed the eastern provinces from the future western provinces ensured the development of Canada as a nation.
(excerpted and adapted from the Introduction to 'Loyalist Lineages of Canada 1783-1983'
by Audrey F. Kirk, U.E. and Robert F. Kirk, with thanks to the Toronto U.E.L Branch) |
I say not really not British due to the phenomena that parts of Southern Ontario and British Columbia are said to be more British than the Brits. But perhaps you'll detect that from the quoted bit.
Last edited by notyoueither on 30-07-2005 at 09:54
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
Toby,
I won't say anything because I'm not unbiased, as you mentioned in your opening post.
But take care to view Canadian perspectives equally skeptically as any. They were just as implicated in that war as the Americans and the British.
I will say one thing though. The idea of the colonies suddenly being given a huge tax hike after the French and Indian War, as Odin mentioned, is a bit of a myth. For nearly 200 years prior to that war the colonies were governed with a high degree of laissez faire and allowed to do pretty much what they wanted. PM Pitt decided to crack down in order to pay off debts, which pissed off the colonists. At least thats my understanding of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
Two million seems very high. But your percentages are about right...IIRC in 1776 the colonists started with about 40% support and by the end of the war they had around 50% support...but I doubt the other 50% moved away, probably another 40% by the end of the war just wasn't interested at all.
However, probably a very high number out of the loyalists (90, 95%) moved because after the war Loyalists were persecuted IIRC.
What was the population difference in the colonies and the UK? What was the difference between tax rates and taxes actually paid?
Blimey mate,
You are actually asking the questions I want answers to- but youre another bloody Yank!!!
OK mate, seems that so far, nobody really agrees on the real US population figures at the time, so what was it in 1776!! The figure needs not a foreign man to be reported- You guys can answer that best.
Taxes paid and tax rates paid is interesting. The poor were on seperate taxes to the rich- the window tax on the rich being a famous example, even the poor laughed at that. (The rich were rich and so could afford a bricklayer to brick up all windows except for the few rooms they actually lived in.)
My area of history is WW2
Which agitator? I'm sure probably at least one of them were smugglers, but the most famous agitator (Sam Adams) was just a bum pre-revolution AFAIK. Probably driven to smuggle by your high taxes no doubt  |
If Starkey reduced the importantance of Adams to an agitor then he would never have be allowed his professorship I hope- he might not be an A.N.Wilson yet, just give the chap time.
He is a serious bloke, I simply cannot believe all that he said. Or take what he said at face value- He wasn't being radical over the causes, I just didn't belive it over my history lessons as a nipper, hence my request. (The programmes have played on my mind since.) I also assumed that BBC America showed it- clearly not mate.
It's not so much revionst history, but corrective- or not.
Toby
I knew it would come to this.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2005 07:05
|