In message , Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

No. Pretty much the standard "British" one since the first ball flew
downrange at Lexington Green.

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

Standard Propaganda Mk 1. What Mr. Sharrock fails to point out is
that the British had their own large land owners [Penns, Allens,
Johnsons, Fairfaxes] slave owners [guess where "rebel contraband"
ended up in the South], "smugglers" [Shippens, Allens] and lawyer
[Galloway] cliques of their own. The "smuggler" tag is laid on all
those who desired not to trade with just British merchants.
Afterall, after the tea act, anyone who desired to purchase their tea
from any other house/trading company other than the East India Company
was a smuggler. Convenient that, no?

As for the loyalists, I would just point to the OP to have a look
around those regions that were occupied by British troops. I also
refer to my reply to Mr Willshaw.

soc.culture.russian spared this tete-et-tete

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed