Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

  • The US/Americans

  • Britain/the UK


Results are only viewable after voting.

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,455
appalacian Mtns
Britain. I couldn’t go to war against my countrymen.
Keep in mind a lot of the colonial "rebel rousers" were Scots, Irish, Welch & Scots-Irish people who saw the Redcoats as their traditional old enemy the English. English attempts too Anglisize these people were successful only so far as language goes, their attempts art winning hearts & minds were not as successful, though some Scots in particular did wear the redcoat, a lot of the rebel Scots saw them as traitors. Major Fergueson comes too mind. By all accounts a decent fellow who just picked the wrong side. There were a lot of loyalists also & they were heinously treated, in my own county there is a massive old oak tree called the Tory oak. These non English people were right or wrong, mostly wrong IMO getting payback for centuries of mistreatment.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
Keep in mind a lot of the colonial "rebel rousers" were Scots, Irish, Welch & Scots-Irish people who saw the Redcoats as their traditional old enemy the English.
Some of the rebels were of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish backgrounds but that is to be expected considering the majority of the colonists were either descended from people who emigrated from the British Isles or recent immigrants from the same. The majority of colonists that were of British ancestry however were English.

There was no real ethnic component to the American Revolution, at least among the whites, because people of English descent made up the majority of both the rebels and the Tories, and you could likewise find people of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish descent in both camps. Moreover the more recent a colonist's family arrived in the Americas the more likely that person was to be a Tory. That included interestingly enough Scots who had been Jacobites. The majority of Scottish immigrants who served in colonial militias, served in Tory regiments rather than with the rebels.

Support for the rebellion - regardless of ethnicity - tended to be higher among those who were born in the colonies. Support for the rebellion did tend to run high in communities settled by immigrants from Ulster, but that probably had little to do with ethnic divisions. More likely it was tied to the fact that the majority of those people settled on the frontier and most whites who settled the frontier - regardless of ethnicity - were unhappy with British policies toward the same...namely the proclamation of 1763 which hampered westward expansion.

Any assertion that the American Revolution had anything to do with old ethnic rivalries in Britain is an argument built on a foundation of sand. There's no evidence for it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
Britain, not only because I have British heritage and am proud of it (my Scottish grandfather fought for the RAF during World War II) but because from a basic moral point of view the British were almost entirely in the right. They were not being unreasonable to expect the American colonies to contribute (and I emphasise that word, since every part of Britain's empire also contributed) to paying off the debts from the Seven Years War. They in fact had the largest reason to pay taxes, since it was their land that the British exhausted so much effort and money defending. I mean, how is it fair for the Thirteen Colonies to not pay for it, but other colonies like in Jamaica or Bengal to have to pay for it? The Americans were being entitled, unreasonable and selfish. Additionally, Britain was a somewhat more just country, at least in the long run, since they were adamantly against further encroachment on Native American lands, and they also abolished slavery decades before the US did.
 
Dec 2018
103
Australia
Britain, not only because I have British heritage and am proud of it (my Scottish grandfather fought for the RAF during World War II) but because from a basic moral point of view the British were almost entirely in the right. They were not being unreasonable to expect the American colonies to contribute (and I emphasise that word, since every part of Britain's empire also contributed) to paying off the debts from the Seven Years War. They in fact had the largest reason to pay taxes, since it was their land that the British exhausted so much effort and money defending. I mean, how is it fair for the Thirteen Colonies to not pay for it, but other colonies like in Jamaica or Bengal to have to pay for it? The Americans were being entitled, unreasonable and selfish. Additionally, Britain was a somewhat more just country, at least in the long run, since they were adamantly against further encroachment on Native American lands, and they also abolished slavery decades before the US did.
Would they have abolished slavery if they had the cotton plantations in southern america????
 
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
Would they have abolished slavery if they had the cotton plantations in southern america????
Considering it was the British that started the Industrial Revolution, which is what made slavery for economic purposes outdated and burdensome, I'd say yes. Remember, they had extremely valuable plantation colonies on Jamaica and Barbados, but still abolished slavery anyway.
 
Dec 2018
103
Australia
Considering it was the British that started the Industrial Revolution, which is what made slavery for economic purposes outdated and burdensome, I'd say yes. Remember, they had extremely valuable plantation colonies on Jamaica and Barbados, but still abolished slavery anyway.
What was the production of jamaca and barbados compared to the southern states?
 
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
What was the production of jamaca and barbados compared to the southern states?
I don't have exact numbers, but I recall reading a while ago that even Barbados alone brought in more profit for Britain than the entirety of the Thirteen Colonies, and Jamaica was also extremely profitable, even more so than Barbados.
 
Dec 2018
103
Australia
I don't have exact numbers, but I recall reading a while ago that even Barbados alone brought in more profit for Britain than the entirety of the Thirteen Colonies, and Jamaica was also extremely profitable, even more so than Barbados.
After the expansion of the 13 colonies the cotton growing area would have grown dramatically. while Jamacia and Barbados would have stayed static.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,455
appalacian Mtns
Any assertion that the American Revolution had anything to do with old ethnic rivalries in Britain is an argument built on a foundation of sand. There's no evidence for it.
I'd say that's true for New England & the North in general, which is what most people focus on for this conflict. Not so for Appalachia, maybe even for the South in general. It wasn't enemy combatants that were hung on the Tory oak, but rather entire families, men, women & children. That kind of hatred comes from more than a disagreement over expansion policy. Ethnic cleansing. Employing German Hessian mercenaries didn't generate any love for the Redcoats either.