"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ...
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

snip
.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights"

For the most part, in the beginning, this was so. However,
simulataneous with that feeling, most felt themselves Americans as
well. I suppose much like the Welsh saw themselves as British and
still Welsh.

and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.

This is egregiously wrong. The war started mostly by "accident" or
happenstance if you will. When Jonas Parker and seventy-six of his
neighbors stood on Lexington Green (well away from and not obstructing
the British line of march), he, and they, had no desire to start a
war. Parker was even in the process of dispersing his men when the
first British volley was fired. However, one may make the case that
the North Ministry had made the concious decision for the use of force
against the Massachusetts Bay Colony at least one to two months prior
to Lexington. It was his orders to Gage stating that the province was
already in a state of rebellion that finally prompted Gage to march on
Concord, though he knew that it very well may lead to fighting.

Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....

A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes.
You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its
causes, or the occurrences of its outbreak. It is quite obvious that,
as I mentioned previously, you are merely parroting what the British
of the day thought and claimed where the "rebellion" "started" by a
small minority of influencial men, and that most "Americans" actually
thought themselves "British" and so were loyal. That was the single
greatest misconception made on the part of the British, and derived
most other British misconceptions. Such as the rebellion was centered
in New England, and so all one had to do was conquer New England and
the rebellion would be crushed. This was the thinking that drove
British strategic planning for the first half of the war. The never
understood it, and worse yet, never even thought of altering those
preceptions though all evidence pointed to the contrary. It could
never be that the loyalists were fewer than the British thought, but
just that they were simply unpatriotic and undesirous to sacrafice
themselves and their comfort. It permiates throughout British writings
of the war. That, more than any other cause, was the reason the
British lost the war, and that misguided thinking has persisted ever
since. Much easier (and more "respectible?") to over credit French
assistance, and blame loyalist indifference.

and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

Or Horatio Hornblower? The Sharpe series? Puh-lease, Mr Sharrock,
nobody but the producers claimed much in the way of historical
accuracy to that movie, which was a box office disappointment
(overall) in a large part because of the liberties (no pun intended)
taken with historical fact and the subsequent controversy with
(American) historians who panned it (and, in no small part its plot
being to obviously derived from "Braveheart"). That said, just what
do you think caused the South to become the center of post-war
American anglo-phobia? Because a few "rich and greedy" men proclaimed
it as such? Problem with much of your, and other posters from your
side of the Pond, is that it is not accurate. American resistance to
the British went through all layers of society for reasons that had
nothing to do with the obtaining of (more) wealth as I've already
previously explained.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed