Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
American War of Independence
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by jinks-cider-stash (U7847019) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
A friend of mine recently told me that Britain did not loose a battle during this conflict and only withdrew because of financial reasons.
Is this true? -
Message 2
Posted by bigfatprodigalson (U5851514) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
No the British lost several battles - though none were pitched - more ambush and hit and run - leading to withdrawal and so on so the effect was the same - think the first pitched battle the British lost to the US was New Orleans in 1812 ?
Britain admitted defeat in the war as the French, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish etc came in to the war on the side of the Americans - and overstretched the army and the Royal Navy - in fact at York Town I think the surrender was given by Cornwallis to the French rather than to the US as it was in fact viewed that it was the French who had defeated us rather than the Continental Army. Their glee was short lived given that Revolution was exported to France shortly after. -
Message 3
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
In point of fact, BFPS, the British at Yorktown did not surrender to the French. Lord Cornwallis refused to surrender his sword to Washington claiming that he was too sick to attend the ceremony, so his deputy (can't recall his name) surrendered to Benjamin Lincoln, Washington's second-in-command and an American. Be that as it may, Cornwallis's capitulation was unconditional, and he signed the surrender himself. The French were there, of course. A French force under command of Comte de Rochambeau was probably more effective than the more-or-less undisciplined American troops, and IMO they deserved the surrender more than did Washington or Lincoln, but while that may be true, Cornwallis officially yielded to the Americans.
You're certainly right about the battles. I can't think of any genuine pitched battles in that war. Even at Yorktown, except for a couple of infantry attacks on British-held redoubts the fighting was strictly an artillery duel. -
Message 4
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Not a very big battle, but the Battle of Cowpens was a clear-cut American victory in an open fight.
Trike. -
Message 5
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
The British Government lost at least two battles of world shaking importance in the First American Civil War. Saratoga, which ruined the Governments Northern strategy and gave the Whigs command of the Northern Provinces and then the battle of Kings Mountain which saw the death of Patrick Ferguson. Apart from Col. Ferguson ,this was an all American battle between Loyalists and Whigs. The vicious treatment given out by the victorius Whigs to the defeated Loyalists, was such as to prevent any other uprising in favour of the Government by the Southern Tories. These two battles lost the government the war.
Without these two battles It was not impossible that America could have retained its close ties with the home land. -
Message 6
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Thu, 22 May 2008 09:38 GMT, in reply to jinks-cider-stash in message 1
Whilst the British lost battles/skirmishes/whatever you want to call them, I understand that they actually won more than they lost. However, they lost important ones. Add to that a breakdown in relations between various commanders, an overstretched army fighting in territory that, both geographically and politically, was frequently hostile, an increasing lack of support at home, and the French, Spanish and Dutch sticking their noses in, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
The concept of the musket-armed British fighting in rigid formations against American riflemen sniping from the bushes is something of a myth. The Americans were mostly armed with muskets and, with the formation of the Continental Army, became increasingly conventional. Meanwhile the British employed riflemen - both their own and Germans - and quickly adopted open order tactics that effectively turned the whole army into light infantry. Native American guides, local loyalists and their own experiences in previous American wars also helped them to adapt. -
Message 7
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Yes, the Brits won most of the battles, but even the few they lost were not disasterous. (well, maybe Saratoga was pretty serious!).
The battle that won US independance was at sea - the French under De Grasse drove off British fleet. Any British army with access to the sea was always hopeful of rescue/reinforcement (Coruna? Lisbon? Dunkirk?) but Cornwallis had to surrender, because the French won one of their VERY rare successes over the Royal Navy.
The British were (as usual) trying to win the war as cheaply as possible, and gave up, rather than spend enough money to send another army! -
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
jinks-cider-stash,
Your friend seems to confuse the WAI with the Vietnam War. In the latter the Americans never lost a fight but still lost the war. In the former the British won most clashes but, as mentioned above, lost a few minor scrapes along with the very significant Saratoga, Virginia Capes and Yorktown. -
Message 9
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
They failed to achieve critical objectives in the North, and then moved to the South where they thought they would be hailed as liberators, but were disappointed and soon lost the war for "hearts and minds" largely by their own hand--Tarleton and Ferguson in the East and the acts of their Indian allies in the West. In the West, the Indians were more than scouts but the major fighting force. While highly effective in warfare, they made every frontiersman a Patriot.
That was the problem at King's Mountain where the force that overwhelmed Ferguson was less a militia than an armed mob of frontiersmen who saw a chance to strike back at the British for having unleashed the Indians on the settlements. In the kind of genocidal warfare which they had been used on the frontier, to kill enemy captives outright, instead of under the knife at the torture pole, was the height of civilized conduct.
Clark's successes in the West, comparable to a modern day Special Forces operation, didn't defeat the Indian allies but complicated Hamilton's scalp buying operations and constituted a major victory in that theatre.
In short the military situation was in fact going badly for the British in every theatre when the disaster at Yorktown occurred, so one can't say it was all just a matter of expense. Or at least not just the expense of continuing the war but the realization that to continue it with any prospect of winning would require a massive escalation of effort and therefore cost.
Whatever burden that the war with the Dutch brought on the British, was entirely of their own making. The Dutch traded with the Americans, and they were working on a secret treaty to implement with them as soon as they had established their nation, but the decision to go to war over that was entirely a British decision. The Dutch did not recognize the US until the year after the defeat at Yorktown, at which point Independence was fairly established although not yet ratified by treaty.
Spanish allies of the Americans removing the British from Pensacola was more important than most recognize as it cut the British off from Indian allies in that theatre. The French participation at Yorktown was of course critical to that success as it was the French who bottled up the Chesapeake and provided about half the land force. In fact, if one counts sailors, I believe that they were the majority of the force.
Which is the reason for the famous line when Blackjack Pershing steped off the gangplank to lead the American forces in WW1 his words were supposedly "Lafayette, we are here!" or something to that effect. -
Message 10
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
A slight diversion from the topic but I've always been under the impression from what I've read and seen that, rather than a noble fight against tyrrany the main motivation for indepence was for the merchant classes to make more money. The fight against tyrrany was just fancy dressing to hide their baser motives. Any truth in this?
-
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Thu, 22 May 2008 14:36 GMT, in reply to Darrenatwork in message 10
Not sure, but Hugh Bicheno has argued that there was little support for a rebellion prior to 1776, but a relatively small group succeeded, through propaganda and manipulation of both the colonists and British, into stoking a degree of resentment into outright hostility. -
Message 12
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Yes!
There was large support for keeping the ties with britain. Some commentators today speak of 1 third Loyalist, 1 third Whig and a 3rd, neutral. You pays your money and takes your pick. Even so some 50,000 Americans joined the War effort on the side of the Government. Commentators say that more joined,'Us,' as it were than joined,' them.'
Why did Britain lose?
Because Tom Gage believed that it not desirable to coerce Americans Whigs back in to the fold which was quite right. How-and-ever he then went on to allow them to coerce their fellow Loyalist citizens by brute force to either keep quiet or join them. If you didn't you suffered severe consequences. It wasn't 'till the revolution started that Loyalists were allowed to act on their own. I think it was Greene one of their generals who complained to Washington that for a tory to show himself at his own door was to be shot! (Rough trans,)
Another reason was that Howe, one of the main British Generals was actually on the side of the Whigs. This is the comment of a modern author who is echoing the cries of the Loyalists. (Urban. Generals.) One of the best books on the 1st, Civil War is, ":Dictionary of the American War of Independence." by Mark Boetner. Published by Cassels. It seems to me to be very truthful and straight forward. The author was a Marine Colonel. -
Message 13
Posted by bigfatprodigalson (U5851514) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
ok point taken at Yorktown - but the fact remains that the British situation was hopeless given the French naval victory effectively cutting off British forces.
As for Saratoga - I dont believe the was any fierce fighting - rather the British were out manoevered and surrounded whilst Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne sat in his tent drinking champaigne - leading to a British surrender.
On saying that the British were never defeated in any pitched battles - this somewhat misses the point as the most telling conflicts - and most costly to the British - were the guerilla attacks - and the fact that they were operating in territory that was unsuitabe to traditional open battles - and hostile to a large army moving around the coutryside.
The name escapes me but there was an expensive defeat of the British in the southern states where more soldiers seccumbed to the heat rather than to the Americans - men dead by heat exhaustion rather than musket balls.
The US won their independence thatnks to their own efforts, their allies and the fact the the British government deemed it too expensive to further persue the war. The was also much sympathy for their cause in the UK - some of the main protagonists being in fact English -
Message 14
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
At the Battle of Saratoga the British were defeated, it really doesn't matter how, the fact is at Saratoga , Bennington and Freeman's Farm the Americans won and the entire Army surrendered. They lost the North, and all the planned strategy went with it. The Army spent its time in Virginia ,turning the state in to a prison. Whilst the rank and file deserted in droves.Amongst other things it put the supporters of the Crown, Jessup's Corp in an awkward position. They were tied to horses and dragged along. One severely wounded soldier with his eye on his cheek was mounted on some poor horse similarly disabled and ridden around the rebel regiments. The Loyalists families themslves went un protected and were at the mercy of the Whigs who didn't hesitate to persecute them.
When similar cruelties were practiced on the Southern Loyalists there too recruiting fell away. Soldiers therefor had to be brought 3000 miles to fight, whilst a considerable number of supporters tarried at home because the Government couldn't make up its mind how to use the Loyalist volunteers..Your statement that the Whigs won their independence with their own effort might be true, but I for one doubt that their effort would have been enough without French men ,French Ships and French Gold. -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Fri, 23 May 2008 14:24 GMT, in reply to luckyfredsdad in message 14
And French weapons, probably.
I'm just realised I've posting in an AWI thread and haven't mentioned the Batlle of Jersey!!
During the War, Channel Island privateers were operating a long way from home, off the coast of America - not so much "God Save the King" as "God Save our Wallets"! They were also having fun with French shipping back home. (If fate has placed you in a strategic position in the English Channel, you might as well make a profit out of it!) At the same time, the French and Spanish were keen to divert British resources away from the defence of Gibraltar, then in the grip of the Great Siege. The result was an unsuccessful French attempt to capture Jersey on 6th January 1781. A few months after the Battle, one of the regiments of British regulars who had taken part, the 83rd (Royal Glasgow Volunteers) was transferred to New York. One of their chaplains, a Mr Weir, was killed at Long Island in 1783. (Interestingly, the 83rd was raised by the Municipality of Glasgow seemingly as much from a desire to halt a war that was having a detrimental impact on their trade as out of patriotism!)
So we have our connections! -
Message 16
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
True eenough Anglo Norman. I found your info about the battle of Jersey interesting. I had heard of it but didn't know whether it was a joke. Anyhow , thanks.
Lfd. -
Message 17
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
This is a letter from George Washington to Congress explaining his strategy;
Trike. -
Message 18
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
If Luckyfred'sdads version hits the important points, then one must conclude that the reason that the Patriots won is that the loyalists were mostlyl cowards who went with the crown when their arms ruled the countryside but the fight drained right out of them as soon as they were faced with force from the other side.
Meanwhile the Patriots were being massacred at the torture stake in the Wyoming Valley by British forces, scalped and tortured all over the west, and suffered somewhat tamer persecution in the settled areas-but only somewhat. Most of the signers of the declaration lost all their property and several family members, including wives and children, due to deprivation while in captivity--not to mention the prison hulks which were little more than extermination chambers for captured Americans. The response was not to withdraw from the fight tail 'tween legs, but to tie their shoelaces and keep going. Teenage boys and young wives, rather than disavowing the cause, took up arms of their fallen men.
So if Fred's Old Man is right, then basically it was just a matter of who had more fight in them. Who folded like a fan vs who reached down and found more fight in themselves.
And I think that does tell a large part of the story, not of the British regulars but the loyalists, who for the most part, were ready to cheer the British troops on to the fight and willing to follow in their wake and burn, plunder and ravish--but not to lay it on the line for what they claimed to believe. So in the end, the British Army found itself wrestling with an Army it couldn't get a grip on surrounded by increasingly angry enemies and friends who were more of a burden than of use.
I think was it says is that the passion for the loyalist cause--well there wasn't much passion---just that it seemed to many people to make sense to not cause trouble and make things easy by going along with the sovereign and not rebel-to stay in the good graces of the big dog. That kind of loyalty evaporates quickly when the big dog goes under.
A good and fun read about war in the South is Jimmy Carter's hitsorical fiction, "Hornet's Nest". -
Message 19
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
The result was an unsuccessful French attempt to capture Jersey on 6th January 1781. A few months after the Battle, one of the regiments of British regulars who had taken part, the 83rd (Royal Glasgow Volunteers) was transferred to New York. One of their chaplains, a Mr Weir, was killed at Long Island in 1783.Ìý
I have to say that when I first heard of the 'Battle of Jersey' in relation to the American War of Independence I thought that it must have taken place maybe across the Hudson River from Yonkers, or in Newark, or else near Trenton or somewhere else in New Jersey - rather than at St Helier. What I was hearing was 'the Baddle of Joyzie'. -
Message 20
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
Kurt Bronson.
You are, to my mind being peevish! That's your privilege, it's of no consequence to me.
In the first place the man in charge General Tom Gage in an effort to allay Whig fears allowed the Whigs to take over the political base in the colonies by means of various committees. Correspondence , Safety and such. THis gave them a very good start especially in the north, New England is an example. Are you denying that force was used against Loyalists? Hutchinson is an example and he isn't by far the only one. Loyalists were boycotted and their families persecuted, i.e. in many cases their children were expelled from school, whilst their debts couldn't be collected. They were hounded from pillar to post. In many instances their farms and houses were taken from them. The Whigs with their control of the base, used the militia. In my opinion that is why there were so many cases of desertion from the Whig or patriot Militia. On the other hand the Government tried initially to use the regular army as a police force and only later did they allow the Loyalists to enlist in Provincial Regiments. This was a mistake. On the other hand volunteer Loyalist had to leave his wife and children to the tender mercies of the Whig Committees.
You are quite right about the hulks, but this was a regular item in the armory of the Government and had been for some fifty years. Does that excuse the mines in Connecticut where the Loyalists were incarcerated on poor rations and without any means of keeping warm, blankets, fires and such ?
Wyoming Valley was indeed a massacre, but by men who had been driven from their homes and whose wives and children had been cruelly treated by the Whigs! If the histories are to be believed the soldiers were American Tories who'd been driven from their home by the,'Sons of Liberty'. The loyalist cruelty was retaiiatory and not a matter of policy.
50,000 Americans joined the Army and fought to retain their British birthright, at many times there were more Americans within the British Army than with the Rebels.
Now, if we want good books on the subject, readable and not too heavy I recommend Oliver Wiswell. Written by the man who wrote the film, North West Passage. The character who Spencer Tracy plays in the film, was a Colonel in the Loyalist /Provincial Reg'ts. His brother took over his men when Rogers was taken with the Dt's. The character played by Robert Young (?) was also a loyalist, a famous painter, Copley, I understand.
There are many instances of Loyalists who succeeded. De Lancey, who was Wellington's aid at Waterloo, he got killed there. Hardy of Trafalgar fame, whose descendant was Oliver Hardy the great film comedian, was a Loyalist. One of the best generals to come out of the 1st, Civil War, was Benedict Arnold. His descendants achieved the rank of general in the british Army right up to the 1st, World War. -
Message 21
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 24th May 2008
"Are you denying that force was used against Loyalists? "
Not at all. What I am saying is that they crumbled in the face of it, and so lost lost the fight. If 50,000 Americans served the crown as you say, man for man, they weren't worth much were they!
Belly slit, small intestines tied to a sapling, penis shot with blank musket charges until it was a blackened shriveled stump. Forced to march by hot burning sticks and knife point on red coals around the sapling while his intestines wound around it. Remains left in that state with numerous other mutilations inflicted on it while yet alive.
And many more suffered similar fates.
That was a real historic and specific description of the fate of one actual American at the hand of Hamilton's mercenaries on the frontier, in the pay of the Crown. The Patriots were not blameless in the matter of bad treatment, but no one can justify sadistic torture and murder of women and children on the basis of being driven out of their home.
Your implication throughout has been that the American's won the war because they were more brutal. That is a slander of the sort which can only be made by the kind of person who will not be dissuaded by facts and I am not replying with any fantasy or intent to do so--but rather to show your "peevish" (yes I think you picked the right label) distortions of matters openly for less knowledgeable readers to see for what they are.
While the American prisoners were dying on the prison hulks, and after brutal treatment, including quite a bit of rape, of the civilian population of New Jersey, the prisoners taken by Washington at Trenton expected similar treatment in turn. They were so pleasantly suprised at the human nature of their treatment that they finished much of their march to their detention area with only one American officer to accompany them--and he then left them to complete the journey on their own--which they did without a single "escape". Many of them stayed after the war and settled here.
I fail to see what bearing the fate of Arnold's descendants, whether lords and ladies, or gutter whores and pickpockets, has on anything that has been said. -
Message 22
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 23
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Monday, 26th May 2008
Hamililton's mercenariesÌý
What we're talking about at the moment is the treatment meeted out the the Loyalist Americans by the Whigs at the time of the first Civil War!.
You talk about 'Hamilton's mercenaries' and issue a catelogue of suffering issued on some unfortunate creature. Were these cruelties mentioned inflicted by Loyalists such as we are discussing? Ordinary Americans who simply wanted to continue living peaceably in what was the freest country in the world! Further , who were willing to take up arms in support of that freedom? There's no way in our language where these people could fairly be labelled, ' mercenaries', hired men. They were free men who appreciated what they had and wished to preserve it.
You misuse the language.
Or are you using Indian cruelties on captured white prisoners such as Captain Crawford to bolster a weak case. Again you are being economical with the truth, if indeed you are refering to Indians. The Whigs knew that this was the Indian mode of behaviour when they tried to get the Original Nations to enter the war on the Whig side.
People being driven out of their homes?
What about the loyalists who were driven out of their homes by Green and his friends from around 96 in 1781/2 and the 100.000 others who went to Canada.
I have not said or implied that the 'Americans' were brutal, I said the 'Whigs,' were and this allegation is supported by enough literature to stand up. What about the floggings and beatings that were regularly meted out to people who didn't support the Whig policies, the tarring and feathering in Boston of Anglicans and Loyalists. What was the purpose of pulling Hutchinson's house apart, a fun day? Why did Green, (?) one of the best and possibly most successful Whig General, complain to Washington regarding the treatment inflicted on Loyalists in the Southern States where Loyalists had only to be stood at ones front door to be shot at. Tell us what the Great Man's reply was to this and other complaints? Was Greene's own treatment to POWs civilised, after the fall of Savannah, when he tied two apiece to the tails of horses and dragged them to parade in front of Loyalist troops at 96? Tell us about the Whig habit of hanging captive Loyalist officers such as they did after Kings Mountain and the Capture of Savannah?
When the Army of the North surrendered at Saratoga it was agreed in the terms that they be returned to Britain on parole. These terms were broken immediately and the captives suffered immediate misuse. If you and anyone else is interested, read the Journal of Roger Lamb. He was there and he escaped.
You imply or even say, that the Loyalists were wimps, you label better men unjustly. The Loyalists tried to join up even before Boston and were prevented by the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Governments refusal to use force on the Whig colonists. When finally they did allow them to join up they eally didn't know what to do with them? Finally they used them as shock troops such as we use the Marines and the SAS. But even the lowly militia stood their ground such as the two small regiments did at the siege of Ninety Six, when offered their chance to disappear from Greene's attack, they refused to leave their Northern comrades in the lurch and joined the force under Brigadier John Harris Cruger another Loyalist name.. -
Message 24
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Monday, 26th May 2008
I always thought it was the Crown forces under Burgoyne who first used the native Indians against the colonial revolutionaries.
are you using Indian cruelties on captured white prisoners such as Captain Crawford to bolster a weak case. Again you are being economical with the truth, if indeed you are refering to Indians. The Whigs knew that this was the Indian mode of behaviour when they tried to get the Original Nations to enter the war on the Whig side.Ìý
General John Burgoyne, Lt-Gen of HM Forces in America, issued a proclamation [ ] to the people of the American colonies on June 20th, 1777, inviting them to cease hostilities, submit to his protection and remain peaceably in their homesteads. He warned them not to spurn this invitation saying:
… let not people be led to disregard [this invitation] by considering their distance from the immediate situation of my Camp. I have but to give stretch to the Indian Forces under my direction, and they amount to Thousands, to overtake the harden'd Enemies of Great Britain and America, (I consider them the same) wherever they may lurk. If notwithstanding these endeavours, and sincere inclinations to effect them, the phrenzy of hostility shou'd remain, I trust I shall stand acquitted in the Eyes of God & Men in denouncing and executing the vengeance of the state against the wilful outcasts. Ìý
The American reply [ ] went as follows:
To John Burgoyne Esq Lieut General of his majesty's armies in America, …. If we go on thus in our obstinacy and ingratitude, what can we expect, but that you should in your anger give a stretch to the Indian forces under your direction, amounting to thousands, to overtake and destroy us, or what is ten times worse, that you should withdraw your fleets and armies and leave us to our own misery, without completing the benevolent task you have begun in restoring to us the rights of the Constitution. … We submit, we submit most puissant Col of the Queen's regiment of Light Dragoons & Governor of Fort William in North Britain, we offer our heads to the scalping knife, and our bellies to the bayonet. Who can resist the terror of your arms? … Forgive us, oh! our country! forgive us dear posterity! forgive us all ye foreign powers! who are anxiously watching our conduct in this important struggle, if we yield implicitly to the persuasive tongue of the most elegant Col of the Queen's Regiment of Light Dragoons. Forbear then, thou magnanimous Lieut general, forbear to denounce vengeance against us! forbear to give a stretch to those restorers of the Constitution's rights, the Indians under your direction! let not the messengers of wrath & justice await us in the field, and devastation, famine and every concomitant horror, bar our return to the allegiance of a prince, who by his royal will, would deprive us of every blessing of life with all possible clemency.Ìý
In the House of Commons Edmund Burke spoke out against Burgoyne’s use of native Indians following the incident in which Jane McCrea had been murdered and scalped by Burgoyne’s Indian scouts. Was it not Patriot rage at ‘Burgoyne’s Indians’ that galvanized the American colonials at Saratoga a few months after the above proclamation? -
Message 25
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Monday, 26th May 2008
Janey Mack,
Burgoyne did use Indian support, but it backfired on him. The Indian threat brought out the Militia in thousands. Not particularly against the British, but their allies.
If I was taught correctly, the Whigs /or /Patriots `approached the Stockwood Indians for support against the Government and they agreed to serve with them. during the First Civil War. How-and-ever, the Government's attitude to the Indians was quite paternal. One of the greatest complaints against the Crown was that by the Quebec Act it prevented the Americans from expropriating Indian Lands beyond the Alleghennies. It wasn't for nothing the Colonials became known as the Long Knives. Another reason that the Whig Faction disliked the Quebec Act was that it allowed the Roman Catholics to hold and practice their religion freely.. The Northern Whigs being of Calvinist stock, not everywhere but generally.
Not all the Indians supported the Government ,those who did felt that by doing so they were protecting their future. Why did the great warrior chief Tecumseh support and seek help from the British Government in their fight with the Yanks . Right up to his death in about 1816. -
Message 26
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 26th May 2008
Freddo:
I don't know a lot about the war in the low country, but studied the upcountry battles in detail as I had a home there.
At the Battle of King's Mountain, the "over the mountain men" as they were then called swarmed east to intecept Ferguson who had decreed that having pacified the upcountry region by pillage and hanging, he would next cross the mountains and hang all in the Tennessee settlements who did not declare for the king.
In hanging his officers they were only giving Ferguson's men what they had themselves been giving out. Considering that they were an unorganized mob as much as a militia, and one suffering under attacks by Indians paid scalp bounties by the Crown, they did pretty good to stop where they did, and at no point violated the oldest law of human conduct, the Law of Reciprocity.
You seem preoccupied with one side of the issue, but forget the hangings, the torture, the bayonets in the bellies of men begging for quarter, and the starvation of the American POW's by the other side. I am not denying any of it, but deny that one side of the story tells the tale.
BTW, the term Long Knives referred not to colonials in general but to a particular group of men, the English speaking counterpart of the Coeur de Bois, the french speaking men of the woods. These were the men who lived at the boundary of the white and Indian world--tending more to the latter. Often living alone in the woods for years in hostile territory, those who survived the life very long were known for their hunting and fighting abilities and were feared by those Indians who became their enemies. They were known as "long knives" for the simple reason that they typically carried longer knives than the small trade knives that the Indians used. They were also known as "Long Hunters" because of their hunting trips of hundreds of miles and months or even years. -
Message 27
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 26th May 2008
"Are you denying that force was used against Loyalists? "
Not at all. What I am saying is that they crumbled in the face of it, and so lost lost the fight. If 50,000 Americans served the crown as you say, man for man, they weren't worth much were they!
Belly slit, small intestines tied to a sapling, penis shot with blank musket charges until it was a blackened shriveled stump. Forced to march by hot burning sticks and knife point on red coals around the sapling while his intestines wound around it. Remains left in that state with numerous other mutilations inflicted on it while yet alive.
And many more suffered similar fates.
That was a real historic and specific description of the fate of one actual American at the hand of Hamilton's mercenaries on the frontier, in the pay of the Crown.
Ìý
Presumably you mean Henry Hamilton?
Tarleton’s British Legion was composed of mostly American Loyalists, I doubt Light Horse Harry Lee thought them not up to much.
-
Message 28
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
Anglo-Norman,
One of their chaplains, a Mr Weir, was killed at Long Island in 1783.Ìý
It must have either been a skirmish or an accident. The Battle of Long Island was in 1776, and there were no campaigns there after that. -
Message 29
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
Tue, 27 May 2008 17:00 GMT, in reply to WhiteCamry in message 28
It must have either been a skirmish or an accident. The Battle of Long Island was in 1776, and there were no campaigns there after that.Ìý
I didn't think there had been anything major in '83. Unfortunately I don't have any other details. -
Message 30
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
Anglo-Norman,
There was as far as I know,'nothing major,' but there was a lot of activity out beyond New York, in what some one called the 'debatable land.'
All through the year 83 there was a continuous secret war!
Lfd. -
Message 31
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
Msg26. Kurt, (The Whig,) Bronson.
You seem preoccupied with one side of the issue,Ìý
Quite possibly. However, I started out as a believer in the Whig view of history until I started reading the books available. I know that the loyalists committed atrocities, but their's was from vengance and frustration. It might not make it any less a trial if your the victim. Frustratingly, that's war!
Lfd. -
Message 32
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
What has always intrigued me is, why did Bonnie Prince Charlie’s Jacobites side with the crown?
s_Creek_Bridge -
Message 33
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
They didn't as far as I know. Charles Edward was offered support by some Jacobites who supported the Whigs and there were two well known officers of the faction in Virginia, who were Jacobites. (I can't remember their names.) I didn't know Charles sided with the Crown. It might be that he thought unity with the mother country might be preferable!
Lfd. -
Message 34
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
Don't misunderstand me. I don't thing LFD's idea that the Revolution succeeded primarily because the loyalists were terrorized is the real story. I was just saying that if he is right about that, and right about how numerous they were, then if you put that together with the historical facts about how much of the terrorism went the other way, then the logical conclusion is that they lost because their loyalty was shallow and they were weak-hearted, for it would mean that they crumbled on getting at the most what they themselves gave.
I was pointing out what is the logical conclusion of his distorted position.
I don't think that is what happened. There was plenty of bravery as well as brutality to go around. It is a small a part of the story but not the central one. Other than the military manuverings of the main combatants, I think that the primary story, at least in the South, with the civilian population was that those who were in neither camp initially ended up becoming anti-Tory in response to the nature of the Tory campaign there. Tarleton and Ferguson were both in the end assets to the Rebellion, just as New Jersey was not a hotbed of patriotism untill the Hessian occupation. -
Message 35
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
They didn't as far as I know. Charles Edward was offered support by some Jacobites who supported the Whigs and there were two well known officers of the faction in Virginia, who were Jacobites. (I can't remember their names.) I didn't know Charles sided with the Crown. It might be that he thought unity with the mother country might be preferable!
Lfd.
Ìý
The only explanation I’ve ever seen is that their clan chieftains ordered them to support the crown, it was these same clan chieftains who had forced them off their land and caused them to emigrate to America, the Macleod of Macleod being a prime example.
You can understand ex-regulators joining Donald Macleod but people (or their children) who had fought the Hanoverians at Culloden would seem to have been more likely to side with the Patriots.
Perhaps the highland chieftains still thought a Stuart restoration possible, but I would have thought the ordinary highlander saw the Patriots as very English. After all it was English radicals like Tom Paine who flocked to the Patriot standard while the majority of Americans who took up arms sided with the crown. -
Message 36
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Regarding the Highlanders siding with the Patriots.
Flora McDonald sided with the Crown. Her husband and her two sons joined up, as it were. As far as I can tell she was like royalty to the Highlanders, a legend in her own time. Read accounts of her funeral. Having her on the Crown side didn't do harm at all. Many more Scots felt the same appreciation. To me it was because they appreciated what America was after Scotland and indeed Britain or Europe. It was indeed the land of the free and the future. That's why so many of the European immigrants supported the Crown as well. It was by general consent the the most relaxed country known at that time. We have to remember too that George the Third was totally different from his predecessors. Amongst the Hanoverian monarchs , he stands out . Also Gen'l Gage's softly, softly, approach didn't put peoples backs up till after hostilities grew warm. He was a sensible man with a good understanding of politics. (His family had been Roman Catholic Jacobites, but had now conformed.
I suppose 99% of the then colonists thought themselves British. At least at first. When the Boston Chap did his famous ride he shouted out not ,'the British are coming' but the 'Regulars are coming." Regulars, a term that lasted at least till the fifties .
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.