Started By
Message

Which side would you have been on in 1775?

Posted on 1/3/18 at 8:17 pm
Posted by KSGamecock
The Woodlands, TX
Member since May 2012
22982 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 8:17 pm


The easy answer is of course "I'd be a Patriot!" but stop to really think about it. Only something like one third to one half of the Colonials were active Patriots, around 1 in 5 were Loyalists, and the rest were neutral.

I took a history of South Carolina class with Dr. Walter Edgar who was also a consultant on Mel Gibson's The Patriot and he brought the question up and made a very convincing case for loyalism. The Professor of Military Science at USC also emphatically argued that he would have been a Loyalist - I do not mean this as an appeal to authority or to regale you with college tales...just to say why it interests me and the first time I really thought about it.

Don't look at it from a modern perspective with everything we know now about how awesome America turned out but rather imagine you're living at the time.

The more I think about it, given my mindset and personality I would definitely have been a loyalist and supported Union with Britain. The Patriots would have seemed like a bunch of loony-bins protesting against taxes that seem reasonable after the Seven Years and French-Indian War. Britannia is the most powerful empire in the world, a shining light of civilization and resolute shield against the despots of mainland Europe, and we get to be a part of it. I would not have been the type to easily relate to the idealistic and liberal intellectuals and firebrands of Philadelphia and Boston.

I would have been team Great Britain.

Here are some of the historical motivations for the Loyalists:

- They were older, better established, and resisted radical change
- They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
- They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
- They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
- They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
- They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come someday, but wanted to postpone the moment.
- They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
- Some were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of many Jacobite rebels after the failure of the last Jacobite rebellion as recently as 1745 who often lost their lands when the Hanoverian government won.
- They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority.
- They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.
- They had been promised freedom from slavery by the British.
- They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations

More Here

What about you?
Posted by LarryCLE
Member since Apr 2017
1638 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:21 pm to
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:25 pm to
I have little doubt I’d have been a Patriot. Really the Boston Tea Party would be enough for me to go in.

Posted by pvilleguru
Member since Jun 2009
60453 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:56 pm to
Definitely a loyalist, but I sure as hell wouldn't have been fighting.
Posted by KSGamecock
The Woodlands, TX
Member since May 2012
22982 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 11:03 pm to
Posted by Rockbrc
Attic
Member since Nov 2015
8862 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 7:18 am to
Rebel
Posted by Sancho Panza
La Habaña, Cuba
Member since Sep 2014
8161 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 8:00 am to
Researched my ancestors, afraid I'd find some pro-British.

All were on the Patriot side, even the one from South Carolina.

They all served in various State units from Virginia, north Carolina, & South Carolina.
Posted by crispyUGA
Upstate SC
Member since Feb 2011
16093 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 8:17 am to
Early in the war, the Southern Colonies were far more Tory than their northern counterparts. Your unpopular laws after the French and Indian War (which was costly for Britain, and were the first real taxes levied against a pretty spoiled colonial America) affected more of your northern industrial colonists than your southern agrarian colonists. Your standard civilian will not want to upset the apple cart via armed conflict if at all possible. A lot of Patriots early on would be considered domestic terrorists today, burning the homes and killing those who were known loyalists, even if they were not taking up arms. As the war started to swing in favor of America a lot of your moderate colonists began to support the Patriot cause simply because they were more scared of them. We've always been a little crazy, I guess.
Posted by TheTideMustRoll
Birmingham, AL
Member since Dec 2009
9629 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 8:41 am to
Tough to say. From today's vantage one tends to read about the causes of the Revolution and think, "Really? All of that because of some taxes on tea and paper?" However, at the time, many Americans were apparently really upset about them.

Knowing my personality the way that I do, I would most likely have supported Union with the Crown as long as I could, but when push came to shove, I'd have sided with my homeland. The same as I'd have probably done in the Civil War.
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:07 pm to
No doubt in my mind. I am a patriot.

The idea of being subject to a monarch who believes they rule over other people by divine right goes against everything I am as a person.
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 2:16 pm
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134050 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:19 pm to
Almost certainly a Loyalist.
Posted by rockiee
Sugar Land, TX
Member since Jan 2015
28542 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:28 pm to
My great, great, great, great, great grandfather

Posted by Pavoloco83
Acworth Ga. too many damn dawgs
Member since Nov 2013
15347 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:46 pm to
As with all things, ones financial situation plays into it. If I were wealthy or had land holdings and thought that my assets could be better served and protected by being loyalist, I would have been so.

However, if I had less, or was impoverished or thought my personal situation was threatened by the crown, then frick it...Im in.
Posted by Pavoloco83
Acworth Ga. too many damn dawgs
Member since Nov 2013
15347 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:47 pm to
quote:

Almost certainly a Loyalist.


T-bird...how many free black men were there? Stronger chance your family would have been slaves? just sayin.
Posted by bawbarn
Member since Jul 2012
3888 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:58 pm to
The one that hated the shitty "government" that was taxing the hell out of us. Same as today.
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 2:59 pm
Posted by crispyUGA
Upstate SC
Member since Feb 2011
16093 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 3:44 pm to
quote:

However, if I had less, or was impoverished or thought my personal situation was threatened by the crown, then frick it...Im in.



The chance to OWN land in the colonies made you a lucky mother fricker in the 1600 & 1700's. The nobles in Britain and on the continent owned 95%+ of all the lands in Europe, so most farmers worked someone else's land. Those able to pay for voyage to the colonies were given land (often times 500+ acres) to farm by either the managing proprietor or the Crown in order to make the colony profitable... but it was still your land. Others would offer themselves into indentured servitude, and at the end of that period of 7 years, they would also receive their own land. If you were a farmer in a southern colony, life was likely very tough for you, but you considered yourself one of the lucky ones. The Stamp act also didn't affect your back country farmers that much. It pissed off your large Planters, your city businessmen in Charleston and Savannah, and your Northern industrialists far, but not the majority of southerners. If Howe had sailed for Charleston or Savannah and consolidated the Crown's holding in the south, with the support of the locals, the war likely would have turned out much differently. The patriot fervor could have been managed and You'd be marching north with both a force of about 10,000 redcoats AND a sizable militia that could have been drawn from the south early on in the war.
Posted by Bill Parker?
Member since Jan 2013
4987 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 4:13 pm to
I'd have to stick with my fellow frontiersmen. So whoever all the indentured servants in Georgia aligned with.
Posted by Arksulli
Fayetteville
Member since Aug 2014
26178 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 4:18 pm to
quote:

The idea of being subject to a monarch who believes they rule over other people by divine right goes against everything I am as a person.




Then you would have been fine being a British subject back then because the King was quite a bit less powerful then Parliament. George the Third was the last King to weld any actual power and he, almost exclusively, just backed his ministers... even when he didn't like them.

Besides, as hard as it it to believe today, before he was vilified by the rebels as a cruel tyrant, George the Third was quite popular in the colonies and used what little power he did have to improve relations to the colonies when he could.

He wasn't a saint mind you, he was one of the last holdouts in the British establishment against ending the war with the Colonies. But when the war finally ended George once again exerted what little power he had to smooth relations with United States.

Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
33013 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 4:31 pm to
Samuel Adams was the biggest instigator of the time and he had a personal beef with the Crown due to its closing down of the family bank in a currency crisis. The truth is that many of the heroes of the revolution were involved in smuggling like Hancock. Boston was getting very prosperous due to people like Hancock and their activities.

Britain for most of its time as master of the 13 colonies part much left the colonists alone to handle their own affairs, but the colonists basically instigated a war against the French due to their constant encroachment into Indian Country West of the Alleghenies. The Crown then feels it has no other choice but to defend their very profitable relationship especially with the Mid Atlantic and New England colonies.

After the War, Britain went to the colonies and asked them to pony up for their protection. Adams et al said they wanted representation in Parliament, Parliament says GTFO....now you have a problem. The British were very benevolent in terms of their power and prestige, they were not really arresting people left and right, many Brits actually sympathized with the colonists...like William Pitt but Adams and his SOL's would not give an inch.
Posted by Sancho Panza
La Habaña, Cuba
Member since Sep 2014
8161 posts
Posted on 1/4/18 at 9:07 pm to
***FREE TRADER***
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on X and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter