Talk:Loyalist (American Revolution): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:38, 30 November 2006

== #REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[--72.86.129.14 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)<math><math>[[Media''': == Headline text == ==]]</math></math>]]]]Small TextSmall TextSmall TextSmall TextSmall Text[reply]

Caption1
Caption2

Caption1
Caption2

Caption1
Caption2

Caption1
Caption2

Block quote

{| class="wikitable"

|- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}Bold text

Headline text

I'm moving the section on Loyalists in the American Revolution here. But the history of the section is still visible on the page Loyalist. QuartierLatin1968 22:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge from UEL?

I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if we shouldn't merge this article with United Empire Loyalist. True, not all Loyalists emigrated, and not all those who did went to BNA, but I find it impossible to say much at UEL that wouldn't be equally relevant here. What do folks think? Quartier Latin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the American perspective is essential for this article. The emphasis is on their experience 1775-83. The UEL will have a Canadian perspective with mopre postwar emphasis. Less than half (?) The Loyalists went to Canada (many stayed in USA). Rjensen 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-american books

In general the British books are quite good. An exception is Hugh Bicheno, & Richard Holmes, Rebels and Redcoats: The American Revolutionary War - Bichenko wrote the book -(Holmes did an introduction), and his books range from 1570 to 1980. he is not a specialist in the Revolution. The book is actually the script of a BBC video, and is not scholarly. The claim that the Loyalists had more soldiers than the Patriots is fantastic--no one thinks they had 10% as many. Doubtless Bicheno misread some source or another. Naturally the reviewers do not recommend it: [1] "What an attack on the very foundation of America. Everyone I know that saw it was ashamed that PBS would air something like this. A one-sided account, which at one point actually portrays Americans as fanatics, comparing them to the Vietcong AND Hezbollah. The list of insults to America and Americans is long, and shameful." Rjensen 13:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like the Mel Gibson fantasy "The Patriot" was an inuslt to British and Canadian sensibilities? TrulyTory 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes exactly like that. We should make sure that Wiki should rise above that, I hope. Rjensen 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian perspective

Hey

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==''' #REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[--[[User:72.86.129.14|72.86.129.14]] 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)<nowiki><math><math>[[Media''':
+== Headline text == ==]]</math></math></nowiki>]]]]<small>Small Text</small><!-- Comment --><small>Small Text</small><small>Small Text</small><small>Small Text</small><small>Small Text</small><!-- Comment --><!-- Comment -->
+<gallery>
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
+</gallery>
+<gallery>
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
+</gallery>
+<gallery>
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
+</gallery>
+<gallery>
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
+Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
+</gallery><blockquote>
+Block quote
+</blockquote><blockquote>
+Block quote
+</blockquote><blockquote>
+Block quote
+</blockquote>{| class="wikitable"
+|-
+! header 1
+! header 2
+! header 3
+|-
+| row 1, cell 1
+| row 1, cell 2
+| row 1, cell 3
+|-
+| row 2, cell 1
+| row 2, cell 2
+| row 2, cell 3
+|}{| class="wikitable"
+|-
+! header 1
+! header 2
+! header 3
+|-
+| row 1, cell 1
+| row 1, cell 2
+| row 1, cell 3
+|-
+| row 2, cell 1
+| row 2, cell 2
+| row 2, cell 3
+|}{| class="wikitable"
+|-
+! header 1
+! header 2
+! header 3
+|-
+| row 1, cell 1
+| row 1, cell 2
+| row 1, cell 3
+|-
+| row 2, cell 1
+| row 2, cell 2
+| row 2, cell 3
+|}{| class="wikitable"
+|-
+! header 1
+! header 2
+! header 3
+|-
+| row 1, cell 1
+| row 1, cell 2
+| row 1, cell 3
+|-
+| row 2, cell 1
+| row 2, cell 2
+| row 2, cell 3
+|}'''Bold text'''
+== Headline text ==
 I'm moving the section on Loyalists in the American Revolution here. But the history of the section is still visible on the page [[Loyalist]]. [[User:QuartierLatin1968|QuartierLatin1968]] 22:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
@@ Line 15: / Line 93: @@
 ==Canadian perspective==
+Hey
-Hey Rjensen. I'm not sure why you wish to fight over a point like this, but fair enough, here's why the words "and Canadian" belong with the mention of a "British perspective". (1) Yes, there was such a thing as a Canadian perspective in 1775, which would have included (at a minimum) the perspective of the ''Canadiens'' or French-speaking population of the Laurentian valley, and also the perspective of the colonial administration of the Province of Quebec. Regarding the latter, both [[Guy Carleton]] and [[Frederick Haldimand]] served as governors of Quebec during the Revolutionary period, and in that and other capacities they provided important services to the settlement of United Empire Loyalists in Canada. See for example Christopher Moore (''The Loyalists'': pp 230-231 for Haldimand, p152 for Carleton (and elsewhere)). Now obviously Moore's book is not a specialized academic monograph, but I won't belabour the point unless you want to see more specialized and in-depth treatments on the Quebec administration during the Revolution. | Turning from the "official" Quebec position to those of the masses, practically any history of Quebec could assure you that public opinion in the St Lawrence – insofar as it can be known – at this time was generally ''ancien Régime'' and traditionalist, with a great deal of satisfaction at the arrangements for the province under the Quebec Act. Having generally transferred popular allegiance from the Crown of France to the Crown of Great Britain, the average ''Canadien'' would (I think it's fair to say) view the Revolution as treasonous or rebellious. The only history of Quebec in my own library that deals with the period is Marc Durand's ''Histoire du Québec'', but I'm afraid I haven't got it with me at the moment; if you like I can see tomorrow what my university library can produce.
-(2) It's also fairly clear that the sentence of the article in question deals (at least in part) with historical interpretation, not just with a snapshot of popular opinion in 1775. There certainly is a body of Canadian historiography concerning the American Revolution; and while it's admittedly simplistic to reduce that historiography to the notion "They were traitors", I think there does remain a strong current of criticism of the revolutionaries for (allegedly) being too violent or headstrong or imprudent, dogmatically imposing their ideas and loyalties upon their neighbours, and hypocritically posing as defenders of "liberty" enforced by a reign of terror. I wonder if our library has a detailed survey of Canadian historiography – I certainly don't, but I'd be interested in checking this one out if you want me to. [[User:QuartierLatin1968|Quartier]][[User talk:QuartierLatin1968|Latin1968]] [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-::for some reason this page has turned very contentious. I'm sorry about that and would like to calm things down. (I am an American who has an interest in Canadian history and give papers in Canada on comparative history of the two countries.)
-First, I certainly do not think that Royal generals and governors like Carleton in any way represented "Canadian" public opinion.  Surely they represented their government in London.  I used the standard book by Mason Wade to explain that the habitants were 1) mostly neutral and refused to fight for King; 2) of those who were active most seem to have supported the American invaders and even raised regiments; 3) a minority supported the King. (Whether group 2 is larger than group 3 is perhaps open--Wade clearly thinks 2 was larger.)  Wade also notes that maybe 3% of the population in Canada in 1775 was British, mostly officials and merchants. They were loyal to the King.  I assume that Canadian opinion = the 97% who were habitants.  Now it is true that most 19th and 20c Canadian historians take an anti-US, pro-Loyalist position, as you outlines it. Americans are too pushy, etc. That is NOT the same thing as saying the habitants of 1775 thought that way. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 01:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-:::Yes, I'm all for calmness as well – forgive me if I sounded touchy earlier. I won't revert you anymore till we've reached an understanding. Just two points: (1) You're misunderstanding me if you thought I meant that Canadian colonial administration reflected ''popular'' opinion. It reflected official opinion – but it was still a "Canadian perspective": even a imperial administrator in Québec City has a different vantage point from one in London. Public opinion's a different issue; I've actually never encountered the view of Mason Wade that you mention, and I'd be interested to learn more about his arguments. (2) Why is public opinion in 1775 the only one that matters? As I say, I think that part of the intro is clearly presenting (in highly reductionist fashion, I admit) opposing perspectives of historical interpretation, not just or even primarily those of contemporaries; let alone those only of contemporaries at the ''beginning'' of the Revolution rather than at the end, the middle, the aftermath, or whatever. [[User:QuartierLatin1968|Quartier]][[User talk:QuartierLatin1968|Latin1968]] [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-::::The tenor of the article is "who was a Loyalist/patriot" -- what proportions of the people in various categories.  What I tried to do was add Canada (Quebec & Nova Scotia) to the mix. Yes the Royal governors and colonels were all loyal to the King, but what about everyone else?  That is why public opinion matters.  Guns matter too and that is why the Am Rev article is mostly about battles. (It gets more interesting when you look at London--at Amherst and Burke and Fox--there were plenty of leading Brits who partially favored the Yanks.) [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-Well, I could reply in detail to those various points (you know I'd love to!); however, I feel we're getting off subject. Why don't we just put in a brief section (which doesn't have to be near the top) concerning the Loyalists in historical memory? And then, if you must insist that the two bullet-pointed sentences apply exclusively to contemporary public opinion (as opposed to subsequent interpretations or contemporary official opinion), then why don't we spell that out? Because the way I read them, they definitely sound to me as though they ''are'' talking about historical memory in the US, Canada, and Britain; but clearly you read them differently. [[User:QuartierLatin1968|Quartier]][[User talk:QuartierLatin1968|Latin1968]] [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-::good points and I tried to tweak it to make the clear reference point 1775 not 2006. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-==Loyalists in popular culture==
-Why do we have note 1?  That seems to be biased and representative of too small a segment of society to be considered "popular culture."  It warrants a corresponding note 2 on the British perspective stating something of similar matter.  I suggest that it be removed.
-[[User:Mets|Mets]] 07:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-:I removed it. The footnote said:
-::"This perspective [that Loyalists were collaborators or traitors] is still widely used in [[popular culture]], and is now considered by some to be offensive."
-:An interesting assertion, but without context or citation, and with [[Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words|weasel wording]] ("considered by some"), it does not meet standards for inclusion here. Interested editors might want to research and expand the point, and then reinsert. --[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin Myers]] | [[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaint dept.)]] 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
-==Second Para. in Intro==
-In the second paragraph in the introduction, there is a mention of one Samuel Seabury returning to the US after the revolution, along with many other loyalists. Now, Seabury indeed did return, but I'm pretty confident that many loyalists did not. In fact, I'm sure most of the loyalists stayed. Also, in the previous sentence, there is a Seabury quote denouncing the Patriots. The positioning of this sentence after a quote denouncing the Patriots, and also its lack of references or facts, strikes me as POV. I'm going to edit it out. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Outsidethewall|Outsidethewall]] ([[User talk:Outsidethewall|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Outsidethewall|contribs]]) on 18 March 2006.</small>
-::Seabury was a refugee in New York city during the war and returned to Connecticut in 1785 or so, points covered in his Wiki bio. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-:::Alright. However, I'm going to edit out that "like many loyalists" thing - I would like to see some references... --Outsidethewall 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-::::It's a matter of numbers. If 20% of the 2 million white colonists were Loyalists that's 400,000.  The number who left was under 100,000. Therefore most stayed.  See the Smith article for statistics. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-:::::Boatner's ''Encyclopedia of the American Revolution'' says about the same thing: of about 500,000 Loyalists in the 13 colonies, about 80,000 left. So about 5 out of 6 Loyalists never left. --[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin Myers]] | [[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaint dept.)]] 16:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-::::::I have read that 80,000 left during the mass exodus before the surrender of New York alone. (Janice Potter, ''The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts'', 1983.) There were others leaving throughout the war from other locales, so I think Boatner's number is too low. [[User:Joel Bastedo|Joel Bastedo]] 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::Most historians put the total who left at about 80,000 (give or take 10%--record keeping was not good.) What source does Potter use to say 80k left through NYC alone? [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 00:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-== Return of the Loyalists ==
-First of all the great majority of Loyalists never left. Those who returned after 1783 were leaders. In general they were hated and resebted at first, but by 1790 most of the laws against them had been repealed and hostility faded away. For detailed coverage see Merrill Jensen; ''The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781-1789'' 1950. Here's a recent article: Kermes, Stephanie.  "I Wish for Nothing More Ardent upon Earth, than to See My Friends and Country Again": the Return of Massachusetts Loyalists."   ''Historical Journal of Massachusetts'' 2002 30(1): 30-49. ISSN: 0276-8313
-Abstract: Although Loyalists were forced to leave Massachusetts during the American Revolution, taking refuge in Canada and England, virtually all expressed a desire to return to what they considered their native home. After the last wave of anti-Toryism passed in the wake of the peace treaty of 1783, a number of Loyalists, typically young, native born, and still emotionally attached to the area, made their way back to Massachusetts between 1784 and 1789. On reentering Massachusetts, they encountered, for the most part, a warm welcome from anti-Toryists and were able to integrate themselves into society, reclaiming property, collecting debts, and joining the conservative, Federalist political culture of the state. Documentation: Based on letters, diaries, other primary sources, and secondary sources; 46 notes. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-==Inconsistency?==
-Opening paragraph: ''However once independence was declared in 1776 Loyalists who continued to support the Crown [...] were expelled, or disarmed, but none were tried for treason or executed.''  During the war: ''two men in Philadelphia were officially executed for supporting the British.''.  So were any loyalists executed or not?  [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-:Many loyalists were convicted of treason and some of those convicted were executed, not just the two in Philadelphia. I am removing the sentence. [[User:Hgebel|Hgebel]] 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)