If you lived in the American colonies, who would you have sided with?

[Admiral]

[andrewza]

I vote for Americans and by that I mean native American Indians. And we would have a vision of what the patriots would do to us. And thus back the loyalists. All so I like red.

[Half Pint John]

I'm sure it would depend a lot on where one lived at the time. Was I living in the UK or in the colonies? IF I was living in my home town I would most likely have been a Loyalist at the start. After the Indian raids, backed by the Crown, started I would have become a rapid Patriot with disgust for the Crown. Using NA against their own subjects as a big mistake. People from over the mountains didn't care much for what was happening back on the coast. Once the Indians came...

[101combatvet]

More then likely I would have been a Loyalist. After the Boston Massacre I would have killed every British soldier in sight.

[johnbryan]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

I'm sure it would depend a lot on where one lived at the time. Was I living in the UK or in the colonies? IF I was living in my home town I would most likely have been a Loyalist at the start. After the Indian raids, backed by the Crown, started I would have become a rapid Patriot with disgust for the Crown. Using NA against their own subjects as a big mistake. People from over the mountains didn't care much for what was happening back on the coast. Once the Indians came...

The British and Indians practically burned Wheeling, West Virginia to the ground as it was. Had it not been for Betty Zane, smuggling in some badly needed gunpowder into the fort in her apron, they would have.

[Massena]

The Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, both of which were 'occurring' during the period of the American Revolution (1763-1789) gave examples of many things, one of the most important for the events and the rebellion, was the social contract, which was one of the major reasons for the break between colonies and mother country. The Americans who wished to break with England believed that the English government (King and Parliament) had broken it because the Americans did not have a voice in the colonial policies of the British government as applied to America.

And the reasons for the break were the complete fault of the British government.

Why?

Because they didn't approach the problem, financing the French and Indian/Seven Years War properly so that it would have been accepted by the Americans.

The British government's policy towards their colonies in North America had been one of 'benign neglect' up to the French and Indian War. The colonies were basically self-ruling, each colony had a legislature of some type with a Royal Governor in place. When wars erupted in Europe, they were echoed in North America as the main antagonist was the French and their Indian allies. And until the, for the British, massive British troops sent to North America beginning with Braddock, the defense of the colonies was up to the Americans themselves.

The British conquest of Canada settled the French problem but the British government was in debt. They believed that the Americans should contribute to paying of the debt incurred by the war and that was correct and right. The way it was handled, high-handed and condescending, was what was wrong and what angered the colonists, who considered themselves Englishmen and were loyal in 1763.

Beginning that year legislation for the colonies, beginning with the largely ignored Proclamation of 1763, was viewed as both illegal and oppressive by the Americans and the British government did nothing to pave the way for the necessary taxes to pay the war debt. And the taxes were not large or crippling-but they were viewed as unjust and that was the catalyst for the War of the Revolution (1775-1783) and eventual independence from England.

If the situation had been handled more intelligently and smoothly, there might not have been a rebellion at all, and the United States might have gone the route of Canada as first Dominion, then as an independent nation under the Commonwealth. In the long run, though, I do believe events as they unfolded were better for all parties concerned.

Sincerely,
M

[Elijah]

Originally Posted by Massena

The Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, both of which were 'occurring' during the period of the American Revolution (1763-1789) gave examples of many things, one of the most important for the events and the rebellion, was the social contract, which was one of the major reasons for the break between colonies and mother country. The Americans who wished to break with England believed that the English government (King and Parliament) had broken it because the Americans did not have a voice in the colonial policies of the British government as applied to America.

And the reasons for the break were the complete fault of the British government.

Why?

Because they didn't approach the problem, financing the French and Indian/Seven Years War properly so that it would have been accepted by the Americans.

The British government's policy towards their colonies in North America had been one of 'benign neglect' up to the French and Indian War. The colonies were basically self-ruling, each colony had a legislature of some type with a Royal Governor in place. When wars erupted in Europe, they were echoed in North America as the main antagonist was the French and their Indian allies. And until the, for the British, massive British troops sent to North America beginning with Braddock, the defense of the colonies was up to the Americans themselves.

The British conquest of Canada settled the French problem but the British government was in debt. They believed that the Americans should contribute to paying of the debt incurred by the war and that was correct and right. The way it was handled, high-handed and condescending, was what was wrong and what angered the colonists, who considered themselves Englishmen and were loyal in 1763.

Beginning that year legislation for the colonies, beginning with the largely ignored Proclamation of 1763, was viewed as both illegal and oppressive by the Americans and the British government did nothing to pave the way for the necessary taxes to pay the war debt. And the taxes were not large or crippling-but they were viewed as unjust and that was the catalyst for the War of the Revolution (1775-1783) and eventual independence from England.

All true and well spoken. Just to add an interesting couple of tidbits. The taxes would not be large for the average guy but certain professions would be hit particulaly hard. For instance, the legal profession. Now, just how smart was it of Parliament to design the Stamp Act in such a way as to make an enemy of every passionate outspoken advocate in the colonies? Some of the most devastating literature of the Stamp Act came from men who would later be Loyalists.

The very influential VA planters would be the ones most unhappy at the Proclamation of 1763. True, that many like the Zanes and the Wataugans would ignore the lines but, the real political power were all members of the Ohio (or other rival) land company. They needed the movement west to be legal so they could sell the land to settlers. The encroachment method meant that people were getting it for free. Sort of like the first comment about the Stamp Tax. What a terrible idea, making enemies of all the VA planters. They dominated society in the largest and most influential of all the colonies. Without having denied them the western expansion, New England would have a difficult time getting key support in 1775 and 1776. In my opinion of course.

If the situation had been handled more intelligently and smoothly, there might not have been a rebellion at all, and the United States might have gone the route of Canada as first Dominion, then as an independent nation under the Commonwealth. In the long run, though, I do believe events as they unfolded were better for all parties concerned.

Sincerely,
M

E

[ChrisF1987]

A bit of both sides. I would have favored either increased autonomy short of independence or representation in London.

[Sparlingo]

Originally Posted by Massena

If the situation had been handled more intelligently and smoothly, there might not have been a rebellion at all, and the United States might have gone the route of Canada as first Dominion, then as an independent nation under the Commonwealth. In the long run, though, I do believe events as they unfolded were better for all parties concerned.

Sincerely,
M

I agree with your entire well thought out post.

It might be added to the above that a similar situation did eventually arise in Canada in the 1837 Rebellion that echoed in Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and Prince Edward Island. In dealing with that rebellion the British did deal with it intelligently in the form of granting "Responsible Government" to the Canadian and Maritime colonies and it became the template for reform throughout the Empire - the document of reform was Lord Durhams report, which I quote part of here:

. . I admit that the system which I propose would, in fact, place the internal government of the Colony in the hands of the colonists themselves; and that we should thus leave to them the execution of the laws, of which we have long entrusted the making solely to them. Perfectly aware of the value of our colonial possessions, and strongly impressed with the necessity of maintaining our connexion with them, I know not in what respect it can be desirable that we should interfere with their internal legislation in matters which do not affect their relations with the mother country. The matters, which so concern us, are very few. The constitution of the form of government,Ðthe regulation of foreign relations, and of trade with the mother country, the other British Colonies, and foreign nations,Ðand the disposal of the public lands, are the only points of which the mother country requires a control. . . . The colonists may not always know what laws are best for them, or which of their countrymen are the fittest for conducting their affairs; but, at least, they have a greater interest in coming to a right judgment on these points, and will take greater pains to do so than those whose welfare is very remotely and slightly affected by the good or bad legislation of these portions of the Empire. If the colonists make bad laws, and select improper persons to conduct their affairs, they will generally be the only, always the greatest, sufferers; and, like the people of other countries, they must bear the ills which they bring on themselves, until they choose to apply the remedy. . . .

Lord Durham was known as "Radical Jack". If Radical Jack's reforms had been applied to the United States in 1776 instead of to British North America in 1842 the general assessment here is that there would have been no succession of the United States. Jack deserves much more credit for his accomplishment than he gets here and in other former British Dominions.

The reforms of 1842 were a pre-cursor to the Confederation in 1867.

Edit added - That and we got Independence from Britain because we filled out all the proper forms correctly

[johnbryan]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

I'm sure it would depend a lot on where one lived at the time. Was I living in the UK or in the colonies? IF I was living in my home town I would most likely have been a Loyalist at the start. After the Indian raids, backed by the Crown, started I would have become a rapid Patriot with disgust for the Crown. Using NA against their own subjects as a big mistake. People from over the mountains didn't care much for what was happening back on the coast. Once the Indians came...

While the NA did their level best to burn down your hometown, there were also several companies of Butler's Rangers, come all the way from Fort Niagara, New York fighting alongside them. I'm pretty sure that was the last formal battle of the Revolutionary War. After being unable to take Fort Henry, both Indians and Rangers returned to Fort Detroit in Michigan, until the peace treaty of Paris was signed.

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by johnbryan

While the NA did their level best to burn down your hometown, there were also several companies of Butler's Rangers, come all the way from Fort Niagara, New York fighting alongside them. I'm pretty sure that was the last formal battle of the Revolutionary War. After being unable to take Fort Henry, both Indians and Rangers returned to Fort Detroit in Michigan, until the peace treaty of Paris was signed.

That is what we like to claim. Surprisingly it is not well known.

should have gotten another greenie,

[Inspector71]

For me, as many Americans then, considering how morally corrupt the English government was, and some of the governors they sent to America, as well as the system of using tax policy to finance the French and Indian as well as other wars, taxing the colonies without their permission, the Anglican church's attempt to indoctrinate colonists toward their more liberal views, and the fact that the British system of rule unwittingly set into motion eventual independence, I'd side with the patriots. Then as now, everyone would have to come to their own conclusions and motivations one way or the other.

[mimike]

“The side with the simplest uniforms wins.” Maj. Mark Cancian, director of defense matters at Harvard’s
Kennedy School of Government.
I don't know about the "simplest" but the Brits certainly had the best looking. Since as many colonist sided with the King as revolted against him, and by any objective analysis the Colonist could not win I probably would have been as Tory, as were my Creek ancestors.

[Wellington95]

I'm sure many of the native-born Americans here would say they would side with the Patriots in a heartbeat, but I'm sure sentiments would be quite different if the enemy was your own government, you were threatened with treason (punishable by excruciating death), and your families and property placed at equal risk.

So I'd like to think I would have sided with the revolutionaries, but in reality I can never really be sure.

[TacCovert4]

Being a broke farmer, and with a large family of broke farmers, we'd have likely gone patriot (I had family members that did). What do you have to lose? And if the Patriots lose you always just go West out of North Carolina into the Kentucky region. Problem solved.