How much effect did loyalist and native American forces have?

Oct 2015
412
Northwest Territories, USA
#2
The Tories had practically no effect whatsoever. They were harassed, persecuted, had their homes burned, and for the most part, fled to Canada to become the founders of that country.

The Native Americans were first enlisted by Washington, who enlisted a few gunmen from the Eastern tribes of Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and a few others in '74. By '76 both sides were courting the Iroquois, but most chose to side with the English, who they thought were the stronger force and more likely to be the victors. The vast majority of the tribes, however, chose to let the whites settle their fight between themselves. Their effect on the outcome was inconsequential, but the suffering they endured in the fallout, in terms of loss of tribal lands (like the whole continent) was devastating to them. Much of it was justified by claiming it was pay-back for choosing to fight on the wrong side when actually, very few chose to fight at all.

Even as late as the Treaty of Ghent, the English had a clause entered that restored the Native American lands and sovereignty back to the Native Americans, but the New Americans chose to ignore that part of the treaty.
 
Jul 2014
1,409
world
#3
The Tories had practically no effect whatsoever. They were harassed, persecuted, had their homes burned, and for the most part, fled to Canada to become the founders of that country.

The Native Americans were first enlisted by Washington, who enlisted a few gunmen from the Eastern tribes of Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and a few others in '74. By '76 both sides were courting the Iroquois, but most chose to side with the English, who they thought were the stronger force and more likely to be the victors. The vast majority of the tribes, however, chose to let the whites settle their fight between themselves. Their effect on the outcome was inconsequential, but the suffering they endured in the fallout, in terms of loss of tribal lands (like the whole continent) was devastating to them. Much of it was justified by claiming it was pay-back for choosing to fight on the wrong side when actually, very few chose to fight at all.

Even as late as the Treaty of Ghent, the English had a clause entered that restored the Native American lands and sovereignty back to the Native Americans, but the New Americans chose to ignore that part of the treaty.
The biggest losers of the American war was American Indians and black African slaves no doubt. The loyalists could retreat to the Canada but black Africans and American had no place to go. English crown should have armed and trained every Indian and African black when they retreated. That would have stopped or at least mitigated the disastrous consequence that the blacks and Indians suffered and may be still do.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,424
#4
The biggest losers of the American war was American Indians and black African slaves no doubt. The loyalists could retreat to the Canada but black Africans and American had no place to go. English crown should have armed and trained every Indian and African black when they retreated. That would have stopped or at least mitigated the disastrous consequence that the blacks and Indians suffered and may be still do.
It would have just resulted in more bloodshed, for no gain. Both African slaves and Native Americans on the frontier were outnumbered by white colonists and would have lost. The natives were not lacking for firearms as it was, and lost.

The 1779 Sullivan Expedition, also known as the Sullivan-Clinton Expedition, was an extended systematic military campaign during the American Revolutionary War against Loyalists ("Tories") and the four Amerindian nations of the Iroquois who had sided with the British.

The campaign ordered and organized by George Washington and his staff was conducted chiefly in the lands of the Iroquois Confederacy 'taking the war home to the enemy to break their morale', and the expedition was largely successful in that goal as they destroyed more than 40 Iroquois villages and stores of winter crops; breaking the power of the six nations in New York all the way to the Great Lakes, as the terrified Indian families relocated to Canada seeking protection of the British. Today this area is the heartland of New York State, and with the military power of the Iroquois vanquished, the events also opened up the vast Ohio Country, the Great Lakes regions, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky to post-war settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition

Britain also couldn't have incited a general slave revolt during the course of the war, as a great number of the American loyalists were slave owners themselves. There were more Tories in the South than New England. Britain would have turned one group of supporters into rebels to gain another group of supporters, and unlike colonial militia the slaves would have to be armed, clothed, and trained from scratch.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
412
Northwest Territories, USA
#5
The biggest losers of the American war was American Indians and black African slaves no doubt. The loyalists could retreat to the Canada but black Africans and American had no place to go. English crown should have armed and trained every Indian and African black when they retreated. That would have stopped or at least mitigated the disastrous consequence that the blacks and Indians suffered and may be still do.
They could have at least sailed them up to Canada. But not much sympathy is given to mercenaries, regardless of their reason for fighting.
 
Jul 2014
1,409
world
#6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition

Britain also couldn't have incited a general slave revolt during the course of the war, as a great number of the American loyalists were slave owners themselves. There were more Tories in the South than New England. Britain would have turned one group of supporters into rebels to gain another group of supporters, and unlike colonial militia the slaves would have to be armed, clothed, and trained from scratch.
I did not know about the Loyalists slave owners but I believe that the Brits did encourage the slaves to run away and join the loyalists as free man. Slaves of George Washington and Jefferson joined the loyalist army and fought for the Brits as free man.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,424
#7
I did not know about the Loyalists slave owners but I believe that the Brits did encourage the slaves to run away and join the loyalists as free man. Slaves of George Washington and Jefferson joined the loyalist army and fought for the Brits as free man.
Lord Dunmore's proclamation only promised freedom to slaves belonging to colonists with rebel sympathies. If a slave ran to the British Army from a planter of known loyalist sympathies, he was liable to be returned if the master or men working for him came looking for the slave and complained.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
1,409
world
#8
Lord Dunmore's proclamation only promised freedom to slaves belonging to colonists with rebel sympathies. If a slave ran to the British Army from a planter of known loyalist sympathies, he was liable to be returned if the master or men working for him came looking for the slave and complained.
That clears everything for me. Thank you. So the Brits only accepted runaway slaves from rebellious slave owners.
 
Oct 2016
238
GB
#9
Quite interesting from an English point of view is you calling the loyalists "Tories" the nickname of the conservative party ,comes from the Irish meaning bandit.

Sent from my victara using Tapatalk
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,677
#10
Quite interesting from an English point of view is you calling the loyalists "Tories" the nickname of the conservative party ,comes from the Irish meaning bandit.

Sent from my victara using Tapatalk
Tories in England were associated with Jacobites, hence the Irish term. It was divided mostly along party and religious lines. Tories and Anglicans were generally loyalists. Whigs, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians were generally patriots.
 

Similar History Discussions