French block airlift of British troops to Basra

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?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

FWIW the only part of my family heritage that is not Irish traces back
through a Nova Scotia German family with Hessian connections from the
revolutionary war.

"The Romkey (Ramichen or Ramge) family came to Halifax, Nova Scotia in
1750 from the village on Nieder-Klingen in Odenwald region of the
Palatinate. The family has its origins in the neighbouring village of
Spachbrücken in the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt. Johann Wendel
Ramichen or Ramge, his wife Anna Margaretha Uhrig, and their children
spent three winters in Halifax before moving to Lunenburg in 1753. The
family eventually settled at Five Houses on the LaHave River where Anna
Margaretha's brother had his 30-acre farm lot."
http://kenneth.paulsen.home.comcast....cotian_Fam.htm

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994

Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:

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?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

Nope. Largely revisionist spin.

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

Ben Franklin pretty much put the revolution supporters as 1/3rd of the population,
with about 1/3 loyalist, and 1/3 fence sitters. He ought to have some idea of
this since he was a very bright man, a reporter at heart, there at the time, and
even had a son who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, who stayed loyal to the
crown, eventually leaving America to finish his life in Britain.

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994


Lots of Hessian POWs settled in this area (western MA) and upper NY state
after the war. Of course they also gravitated towards PA "Dutch" country as
well for obvious reasons.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


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?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf


Nope. Largely revisionist spin.

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.


so smuggling is accepted as a description

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.


The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful


The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.


Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.


Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
corps.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.


Ben Franklin pretty much put the revolution supporters as 1/3rd of the population,
with about 1/3 loyalist, and 1/3 fence sitters. He ought to have some idea of
this since he was a very bright man, a reporter at heart, there at the time, and
even had a son who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, who stayed loyal to the
crown, eventually leaving America to finish his life in Britain.

Fair enough.

Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.


so smuggling is accepted as a description

A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful

The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
it.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.

Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
not be unusual.

Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
corps.

It's complete bunk! Not a strawman at all though. Just an observation on a
significant intellectual force driving the interpretation of American history
over the past 30 years.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms


The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.


The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
it.

The French were slow to join in mainly because funding revolution in
the enemies back yard can and was in this case too, be a double edged
sword. The hope of ruining the financial succcess in the UK was to
much to give up though and eventually the French provided substantial
support both in funds men and material, and went to war with the UK as
well. Unfortunately for the French, although they engineered
independance for part of the American colonies, it cost them dear
financially, and the terms of the peace negotiated with the UK led
rapidly to financial ruin for France, and their own revolution.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.

Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
not be unusual.

The European/American world of the 18th and 19th centuries was very
much driven by capitalism and the generation of wealth, this was the
reason for the success of British Empire, the USA, and the short lived
German Empire. Some colonists saw this and the USA was born




no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.


On the other hand many felt that they had every thing to gain from
achieving independance. It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king. Certainly history has shown that
their gamble paid off, and one wonders how much better some of the
other colonies may have done if they had been given independance
sooner. It is also interesting to observe that the loss of the
southern colonies did not really hold back the UK and in fact was the
dawning of a century of world domination through trade.

Peter

Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.



Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.

I believe David McCulloch's book "John Adams" says that a committee was
formed to study various forms of democratic government through history,
in order to attempt to discover strengths and weaknesses of the various
forms. I think John Adams was a member of this committee because of an
earlier work he did on the subject.

The prime mover was of course James Madison, who certainly borrowed
ideas on democratic governance from others, but the form of the US
government, as defined by its Constitution, was pretty well original
in its sum.

Certainly not a rip off ["mere improvement"] of the British system.


SMH

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.


I did say improved and I do mean that there are may aspects of the
original US constitution which were an improvement on that which had
gone before, but the powers of the President are very closely related
to the powers which were held by the monarchy at that time. Certainly
the US constitution was never as radical as some of the French
versions before Napoleon got his sticky hands on power.

Peter

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.

And that what's it still is. Still the UK doesn't
have a Federal Government. NASA is a wholey-owned
property of the US. The European counterpart
is France. The Asian counterpart is God Help Everybody.
Australia.

Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms

"Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.

Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
materials at high cost.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.


SMH