Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:07 AM   #131
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Agreed, and well said my friend.

There some here to fail to comprehend that there was a time when the colonist were proud to be British and wore it as a badge of honor.
I would dare say that just a few years before in the last French and Indian War most colonials considered themselves British, except for those families with Dutch or Spanish roots.
wilber6150 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:11 AM   #132
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
Poor Wilber. Did he ever get his question answered?
Well, it has turned into a really nice thread though lol My thoughts on this is that if they were part of the debates on taxiation to pay the huge costs of the wars, the conflict might have been avoided for a while..Or if perhaps the King took a more active role in trying to calm the emotions of the colonials it might have helped as well.. Even during the first part of the war people were still toasting to the King, it was Parliament that they seemed to have a issue with..
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:14 AM   #133
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
Sure.

The Galloway Plan of Union

The Albany Plan

These are two of the most detailed, well known examples, but the idea of setting up a new constitution for the British Empire was in the air in general from the middle of the 18th century on. There was a broad faction of moderates who dominated political discourse right up until the radicals really took power in the middle 1770's who were in favor of SOME kind of constitutional union with Great Britain.



No, they would say, "I am a Pennsylvanian", or, "I am a Massachusetts man". Their primary political identity would be with their colony, and only through that identity with the Crown.

It's kind of funny that you're making some of the same basic mis-understandings of the American worldview that London movers and shakers did in the 18th century that ultimately lead to the Revolution in the first place.
Thank you should make for interesting reading..
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:15 AM   #134

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilber6150 View Post
I don't thats true for the most parts, sure you had certain colonies that were growing quite independent like Mass, but many of the Southern colonies and even New York had quite strong feelings for England..The last numbers I read I believe showed that New York actually supplied more men to fight for the Crown then against it..
But these were the exception, not the norm. Yes, Georgia, South Carolina and New York City had large loyalist elements, but they amount to just a small percentage of the 13 colonies. (And it will be noted that when war came to South Carolina, South Carolinians rallied to the Patriot cause.) It's estimated that 19% of the white population of the colonies in total were loyalists. The remaining 81% had varying degrees of "loyalty", ranging from 0% to 49%.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:18 AM   #135
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
It is worth remembering that in the 1760’s the franchise in Britain was restricted to a fairly narrow level of middle-class Protestant males and that the House of Lords retained enormous power both directly and from the “ownership” of rotten and pocket boroughs by the Great Landowners.
Ireland, although it had its own assembly, was not represented in Westminster until 1801 and Scotland had only received 45 seats at Westminster in 1707.
What became Canada, the Caribbean Islands (far more valuable that American States in the 1760s) and other settled possessions also had no seats in Westminster.
The philosophy of the time was that all subjects (including Women, Slaves, Lunatics and American colonists) were virtually represented—an idea that the newly Independent Americans applied after 1789 to Slaves, Indians, Women and non-property owning White males.
The idea at the time of special seats for the Colonies was not confined to the Americas, Adam Smith had proposed an Imperial Parliament with wide ranging representation—an idea that cropped up every generation throughout the life of the British Empire. In fact the ideas of less government control and the rights of the individual were very strong in the England of the middle and late 18thC and American colonists had far more support among British politicians, society at large and the military than American popular histories ever admit to. The problem came when they swapped protest for treason and history tells us that only a third of the colonists themselves were ready to commit treason against their King.
The population of America in 1776 was around 3 million. If the same requirements of the franchise that held in Britain were applied, perhaps 100,000 people could have voted. How the seats would have been apportioned is anyone’s guess, but let us say that America could obtain 20 seats (5,000 voters per seat), they would form a fairly insignificant bloc in Westminster and regulations and taxes voted by Westminster on the Colonies would not only be binding, but legitimised by the presence of American MPs. Like the Irish a hundred years later, they would probably have packed their tents and gone home in a sulk.
Seats in Westminster would probably have delayed the smugglers, land grabbers and tax-dodger rebellion for a few years--- what may have headed it off for a generation or two, would have been to bribe the elite with fancy titles--like Baron Washington of Virginia, Lord Jefferson of whatever and chucked Knighthoods around like confetti to the abysmally snobbish social climbers.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.. Forgive my ignorance but do you know how the seats were apportioned for areas within England, was it the 5,000 vote number or something else...
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:22 AM   #136
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Nicely put, and exactly my point, thank you for eloquent execution of the idea that the Revolution was nothing more then a Capitalist land grab and purely treasonous to the Crown.
I'm not sure I agree with this as there was a ground swell of support for the war from people who already had land.. In addition, vast areas of the colonies were sparsely settled and were begging for people, so available land didn't seem to be a issue. Johnson brought over Scots to settle his land to try to build up his areas because of this very issue..
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:26 AM   #137
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Sparsely?!?! eh, I am sure that 1/5 of the world's population does not make for a sparsely populated Empire.

Your Empire envy is showing.

How does it feel to be a footnote TO the British Empire instead of leaving your own lasting legacy.

Remember, when you type your reply what language you are typing it in?
I believe our legacy is that England isn't speaking German right now...
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:26 AM   #138

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 2,999
Blog Entries: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
But these were the exception, not the norm. Yes, Georgia, South Carolina and New York City had large loyalist elements, but they amount to just a small percentage of the 13 colonies. (And it will be noted that when war came to South Carolina, South Carolinians rallied to the Patriot cause.) It's estimated that 19% of the white population of the colonies in total were loyalists. The remaining 81% had varying degrees of "loyalty", ranging from 0% to 49%.

While I do think 19% is a realistic estimate, I am wondering who came up with this formula? So often historians sit back and take John Adams old nugget about 1/3 1/3 and 1/3 as if it were gospel.

My SC studies lead me to think the patriots actually held a majority. Mostly due to the heavy population in the back country. (actually more population than the low country areas). I do think New York had the most loyalists. Perhaps even greater than 50%. I am not certain whether NY supplied more patriot soldiers than British soldiers but I do believe NY supplied a very large number of Provincial soldiers. The British also found New Jersey to be a ripe recruiting ground.

North Carolina had a large loyalist population but I don't think it really matches up to the patriot population numbers. The Yadkin region was known for loyalists. Colonel Samuel Bryan came from that area and led his men to disaster against Sumter at Hanging Rock. It was mostly the British fault as they dragged their feet in providing arms for Bryan's men. Of course NC is also famous for the loyal highlanders at Moore's Creek Bridge.
Baltis is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:35 AM   #139
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltis View Post
While I do think 19% is a realistic estimate, I am wondering who came up with this formula? So often historians sit back and take John Adams old nugget about 1/3 1/3 and 1/3 as if it were gospel.

My SC studies lead me to think the patriots actually held a majority. Mostly due to the heavy population in the back country. (actually more population than the low country areas). I do think New York had the most loyalists. Perhaps even greater than 50%. I am not certain whether NY supplied more patriot soldiers than British soldiers but I do believe NY supplied a very large number of Provincial soldiers. The British also found New Jersey to be a ripe recruiting ground.

North Carolina had a large loyalist population but I don't think it really matches up to the patriot population numbers. The Yadkin region was known for loyalists. Colonel Samuel Bryan came from that area and led his men to disaster against Sumter at Hanging Rock. It was mostly the British fault as they dragged their feet in providing arms for Bryan's men. Of course NC is also famous for the loyal highlanders at Moore's Creek Bridge.
I will have to check my books, but if I recall correctly New York supplied several thosuand more troops into Loyalist units..And was the reason that were so many out of state regiments stationed in New York..The fierce fighting on the frontier with Canada seemed to have bonded New York closer to England..New York experienced its first Civil War here in Upstate with vast expanses left desolated and deserted from Albany to the Canadian border..
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:39 AM   #140

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltis View Post
While I do think 19% is a realistic estimate, I am wondering who came up with this formula? So often historians sit back and take John Adams old nugget about 1/3 1/3 and 1/3 as if it were gospel.

My SC studies lead me to think the patriots actually held a majority. Mostly due to the heavy population in the back country. (actually more population than the low country areas). I do think New York had the most loyalists. Perhaps even greater than 50%. I am not certain whether NY supplied more patriot soldiers than British soldiers but I do believe NY supplied a very large number of Provincial soldiers. The British also found New Jersey to be a ripe recruiting ground.

North Carolina had a large loyalist population but I don't think it really matches up to the patriot population numbers. The Yadkin region was known for loyalists. Colonel Samuel Bryan came from that area and led his men to disaster against Sumter at Hanging Rock. It was mostly the British fault as they dragged their feet in providing arms for Bryan's men. Of course NC is also famous for the loyal highlanders at Moore's Creek Bridge.
The 19% number is quoted in Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause (page 550). His footnote reads:

Quote:
The most careful study of loyalist numbers is Paul H. Smith, "The American Loyalists Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength," WMQ, 3d Ser., 25 (1968), 258-77.
On the same page, Middlekauff also claims that "In no colony did loyalists outnumber revolutionaries." He says the greatest pockets of loyalists were: tenant farmers in NY, the Dutch in NY and NJ, Germans and Quakers in PA (when they were unable to stay out of the war altogether), Highland Scots in the Carolinas, Anglicans in Connecticut and NY, "a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies", and the Iroquois. (And he provides multiple sources for this in his footnotes).

Last edited by Rongo; November 28th, 2012 at 04:54 AM.
Rongo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
colonial, parliament, seats


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pressurized cabins & ejections seats WW 2 Black hornet War and Military History 3 July 21st, 2010 11:25 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.