Tories vs Southern Unionists

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

It's well established that part of the Lost Cause myth was The Solid South i.e. the claim/belief that the South was united behind the CSA. We now recognize strong anti-secession elements in places like east TN, west NC, Ozarks, parts of FL, and Jones County. Then there is the deflation of the happy slave issue. We recognize that nearly all of a significant minority of the South was very much not pro-CSA.

In the American Revolution you had Tories/Loyalists who sided with Britain. White Tories were a significant portion of the population. The British also enticed slaves to run away and join British forces to gain freedom and fight against their former masters, with some success. I daresay there were more Tories in the 13 colonies during the Revolution than Southern Unionists + slaves in the seceded ACW.

Was there ever an effort to obscure, ignore, or forget the Loyalists/Tories of the American Revolution like there was for Southern Unionists of the ACW?

 

[Bruce Vail]

Good question.

I can tell you from my childhood growing up in a part of New York where there were a lot of Tories that almost all of the historical sites and local historical lore focuses on the Revolutionaries. The Tories, who are impossible to ignore altogether (there were so many of them in Westchester Co.!), are the bad guys, of course.

BTW - it appears that were Patriots, Tories and Quaker abstainers in my own family tree. One of these days, I'm going to try to sort it all out...

 

[kevikens]

What I can tell you is that while British historians and American historians have not written a great deal about American Loyalists, the situation is somewhat different in Canada. I went to Niagara University and had ample opportunity to watch Canadian TV, cross the border with little more than a wave and a delay less than that at a turnpike toll booth, visit Canadian schools and sample the local textbooks. I was very surprised to once read a Canadian book where the enemy was George Washington and the good guys were the Loyalist rangers. I also discovered a fraternal organization there, the United Empire Loyalists, a sort of Sons and Daughters of the American revolution for the descendants of all those Loyalists who fled to the Maritime Provinces and Upper Canada after the war. I also discovered that Colonel John Graves Simcoe (yes the same Simcoe as the figure in the TV series, Turn) was a very capable and respected officer and after the war made a very good governor for Upper Canada (Ontario). I guess what one sees depends on where one stands.

 

[Carronade]

I don't know about any deliberate effort, but I don't think average Americans today have much awareness of Loyalists or how many people at the time opposed independence.

One significant point is that many Loyalists left the country after independence, as did most of the blacks who had joined the British cause. There weren't, and aren't, many people in the United States carrying on the Loyalist Lost Cause.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I don't about any deliberate effort, but I don't think average Americans today have much awareness of Loyalists or how many people at the time opposed independence.

One significant point is that many Loyalists left the country after independence, as did most of the blacks who had joined the British cause. There weren't, and aren't, many people in the United States carrying on the Loyalist Lost Cause.

I think you are on to something here. Whereas Confederate soldiers were pardoned by the government and talk about "reconciliation" began immediately after cessation of hostilities in 1865, no such generosity was extended to the defeated Tories.

Dedicated Tories were encouraged to emigrate to Canada, or elsewhere. Some rich Tories had their lands seized.

 

[kevikens]

I don't about any deliberate effort, but I don't think average Americans today have much awareness of Loyalists or how many people at the time opposed independence.

One significant point is that many Loyalists left the country after independence, as did most of the blacks who had joined the British cause. There weren't, and aren't, many people in the United States carrying on the Loyalist Lost Cause.

The facts about the Loyalists from the Revolution and the Unionists in the South do not fit into the traditional narratives of everybody having been on board for rebellion for the simple reason that those dissidents brought into question the motives and wisdom of the majority. One fact always stood out for me from the Revolution and the Loyalists. The number of Americans in the Provincial regiments was almost the same number as those in the Continental Army in 1780. The British tended to keep these regiments at arms length, often giving them the detail of guarding the baggage train, and failed to take advantage of what could have been their very best troops, Americans trained and equipped in the British manner. What really enabled the American Rebels to win that war was that they had a much larger militia force to draw on to supplement those Continental forces and of course, the French, Dutch and Spanish allies help which the South never had.

 

[Southern Unionist]

We now recognize strong anti-secession elements in places like east TN, west NC, Ozarks, parts of FL, and Jones County.

Also central NC. Slavery benefited this state only in the east, and not very much there either.

NC seceded primarily to avoid fighting against our neighbors. Also, I don't see any evidence that the Lost Cause myth was ever particularly strong here. You won't find massive monuments to key CSA figures, just modest ones to honor soldier who died, and Confederate flags have for all my life been much more rare here than in Virginia or SC.

On the other hand, there was not much love for the British here. Charlotte drafted the first document in the Colonies rejecting British rule. It was ignored.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Hugh L. Keenleyside, a Canadian diplomat, historian and Professor of Law and Political Institutions at the University of Toronto makes the claim that Canadians have also been deficient in their knowledge of the Loyalists who fled to British Canada and their impact on Canada then and as a nation today:

"Second only to the American Revolution itself in its effect upon the history of the continent was the formation and persistence of the Canadian nation} and in both the establishment and the preservation of this political and cultural entity the Loyalists played a conspicuous role. The more nationalistic historians of the United States have been content to anathematize the Tory as a traitor, while Canadian textbooks paid him passing tribute as a martyr and a hero. But neither Americans nor Canadians have sufficiently recognized in the Loyalists a force that has played a vital part in molding and directing the history of a continent Yet had it not been for the Loyalist pioneers, imbued as they were with a bitter hatred for things American, it is altogether probable that Canada would have fallen before the republican assaults in 1812, and that it would be today a political division of the United States. The indignities they had endured had burned into the souls of the Loyalists a hatred of Americans which, bequeathed to succeeding generations, has not been negligible in its influence upon modern Canadian history. In the early and critical days it was a determining force."
Canada and the United States - Some Aspects of Their Historical Relations, pp. 32-33, Hugh L. Kennleyside (Alfred A. Knopf: 1952)

 

[Bruce Vail]

The New Jersey branch of the Vail family (my father's paternal line) included Tories.

Nathaniel4 Vail, Sr (John J.3, Samuel2, Thomas1) was born December 03, 1724 in Woodbridge/Rahway/Plainfield, New Jersey, USA, and died 1783 in St John, New Brunswick, Canada.He marriedElizabeth Dennis May 03, 1748.She was born Abt. 1731, and died 1815 in Gagetown, Queens New Brunswick.
Notes for Nathaniel Vail, Sr:
Arrived in Saint John in 1783 on ship "Duchess of Gordon". Was a Loyalist during the Revolution.
Nathaniel "made acknowledgment 4-15, 1749"; (or in modern reckoning, before 1 August, 1748, for the wedding; 26 June, 1749, for the acknowledgment). Nathaniel lived at Elizabethtown, N. J., until after the Revolutionary War when he and part of his family removed to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, he being a Loyalist.He is buried at St. John, N. B. near the falls.
Veal, or Vail. Three, Loyalist Associators at New York, in 1782 to settle at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, namely: Nathaniel, Nathaniel Jr., and Robert. The former had a family of eight persons, and in 1783 was a grantee of St. John, New Brunswick.(Loyalists in the American Revolution, Vol II)
Refugees (Partical) List of sundry persons who have taken refuge within the British Lines and petitioned the Commander-in Chief for relief with report on the said petitions by the Board appointed by His Excellency, Sir Guy Carleton, Commander - in - Chief, to consider the circumstances and claims of the said petitioners,New York, 30 Sept 1782. (Underthe heading for refugees from New Jersey):

 

[leftyhunter]

The facts about the Loyalists from the Revolution and the Unionists in the South do not fit into the traditional narratives of everybody having been on board for rebellion for the simple reason that those dissidents brought into question the motives and wisdom of the majority. One fact always stood out for me from the Revolution and the Loyalists. The number of Americans in the Provincial regiments was almost the same number as those in the Continental Army in 1780. The British tended to keep these regiments at arms length, often giving them the detail of guarding the baggage train, and failed to take advantage of what could have been their very best troops, Americans trained and equipped in the British manner. What really enabled the American Rebels to win that war was that they had a much larger militia force to draw on to supplement those Continental forces and of course, the French, Dutch and Spanish allies help which the South never had.

If it is true that there were almost gas many loyalist troops as there were troops in the Contential Army then the Revolutionary War was trully the first American Civil War.
Are there any round number estimates of Loyalist troops say based on a scholarly work such has "Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current?
Has Current shows in his book and also based on the regimental histories per Dyers Compendium plus my own thread "How effective were Unionist Regiments" Unionist troops most definitely were often front line troops.
Has Current notes approximately 55 thousand or half the Unionist troops served in out of state regiments. Did Loyalist troops serve in British regiments?
By that I mean integrated into traditional British regiments such has the Black Watch?
Also many Unionist troops were former Confederate troops. Were many loyalist troops former Continental Army troops?
Leftyhunter

 

[John S. Carter]

It's well established that part of the Lost Cause myth was The Solid South i.e. the claim/belief that the South was united behind the CSA. We now recognize strong anti-secession elements in places like east TN, west NC, Ozarks, parts of FL, and Jones County. Then there is the deflation of the happy slave issue. We recognize that nearly all of a significant minority of the South was very much not pro-CSA.

In the American Revolution you had Tories/Loyalists who sided with Britain. White Tories were a significant portion of the population. The British also enticed slaves to run away and join British forces to gain freedom and fight against their former masters, with some success. I daresay there were more Tories in the 13 colonies during the Revolution than Southern Unionists + slaves in the seceded ACW.

Was there ever an effort to obscure, ignore, or forget the Loyalists/Tories of the American Revolution like there was for Southern Unionists of the ACW?

In some of those it was not political but more like long suppressed hostilities /feuds . In certain ares of the south this war gave certain families a opportunity settle with their neighbors on long time grievances,this would last past the war.Those fought for the Union ,fought for no real issues but for a hope for a change in the social system, to revenge themselves on a class system that was dominated by the Plantation class

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

If it is true that there were almost gas many loyalist troops as there were troops in the Continental Army then the Revolutionary War was truly the first American Civil War.

I've read several books that certainly argue that point. There were even a few battles - King's Mountain in particular - where the "British" side was fought almost entirely by Loyalist troops.

Are there any round number estimates of Loyalist troops say based on a scholarly work such has "Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current?

I don't know if there is, but there certainly should be. *searches* Looks like there is:
Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War by Thomas B. Allen

I recall some book I read in recent years (no idea which one) suggesting that about 25% of colonists were Patriots, about 25% were Loyalists, and the other 50% were neutral. However, an internet search suggests Loyalists were probably closer to 15%.

Did Loyalist troops serve in British regiments?

To my knowledge loyalists were normally formed into their own regiments, albeit under British officers. Tarleton's infamous dragoons were one example. (There's an interesting parallel to USCT.)

 

[huskerblitz]

Overall and the rule of thumb for numbers is 1/3 patriots, 1/3 loyalists, 1/3 neutral (favored no side).

 

[leftyhunter]

In some of those it was not political but more like long suppressed hostilities /feuds . In certain ares of the south this war gave certain families a opportunity settle with their neighbors on long time grievances,this would last past the war.Those fought for the Union ,fought for no real issues but for a hope for a change in the social system, to revenge themselves on a class system that was dominated by the Plantation class

Do you have some historical evidence that all Unionist soldiers fought only based on family feuds and not loyalty to the Union?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

In some of those it was not political but more like long suppressed hostilities /feuds . In certain ares of the south this war gave certain families a opportunity settle with their neighbors on long time grievances,this would last past the war.Those fought for the Union ,fought for no real issues but for a hope for a change in the social system, to revenge themselves on a class system that was dominated by the Plantation class

Why would thousands of young men from East Tennessee risk their lives on a hazardous journey over the mountains into Kentucky to join the Union Army serving far from home if they wanted to settle local feuds?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I've read several books that certainly argue that point. There were even a few battles - King's Mountain in particular - where the "British" side was fought almost entirely by Loyalist troops.



I don't know if there is, but there certainly should be. *searches* Looks like there is:
Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War by Thomas B. Allen

I recall some book I read in recent years (no idea which one) suggesting that about 25% of colonists were Patriots, about 25% were Loyalists, and the other 50% were neutral. However, an internet search suggests Loyalists were probably closer to 15%.



To my knowledge loyalists were normally formed into their own regiments, albeit under British officers. Tarleton's infamous dragoons were one example. (There's an interesting parallel to USCT.)

Allens book sounds interesting although I have a stack of unread books as do many others here.
Are there any round number estimates of black soldiers fighting on behalf of the Crown vs for the Continental's?
Did American slaves rush to join the British Army post their emancipation offer when able to do so?
Leftyhunter

 

[kevikens]

Overall and the rule of thumb for numbers is 1/3 patriots, 1/3 loyalists, 1/3 neutral (favored no side).

That quote of the 1/3 of each is attributed to John Adams and is probably post war. The estimates I have seen most often on books of the Revolution is 40% active Patriots, 20% Loyalists, but many were not active in doing anything more than cheering for the Crown and some 40% whose allegiance was pretty much determined by who controlled the countryside at the moment. I have always felt that the percentage of white Southerners who actively supported secession was, at least early in the Civil War, greater in percentage than the revolution.

 

[huskerblitz]

That quote of the 1/3 of each is attributed to John Adams and is probably post war. The estimates I have seen most often on books of the Revolution is 40% active Patriots, 20% Loyalists, but many were not active in doing anything more than cheering for the Crown and some 40% whose allegiance was pretty much determined by who controlled the countryside at the moment. I have always felt that the percentage of white Southerners who actively supported secession was, at least early in the Civil War, greater in percentage than the revolution.

These were the numbers presented when I got my Master's Degree during Revolution portion. In any case we can agree it is impossible to know more than just estimates as there were no Gallop polls.

 

[kevikens]

If it is true that there were almost gas many loyalist troops as there were troops in the Contential Army then the Revolutionary War was trully the first American Civil War.
Are there any round number estimates of Loyalist troops say based on a scholarly work such has "Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current?
Has Current shows in his book and also based on the regimental histories per Dyers Compendium plus my own thread "How effective were Unionist Regiments" Unionist troops most definitely were often front line troops.
Has Current notes approximately 55 thousand or half the Unionist troops served in out of state regiments. Did Loyalist troops serve in British regiments?
By that I mean integrated into traditional British regiments such has the Black Watch?
Also many Unionist troops were former Confederate troops. Were many loyalist troops former Continental Army troops?
Leftyhunter

I don't have the books readily at hand but if I recall correctly there were about 10,000 Americans in the year 1780 in what the British called, 'Provincial Regiments' most of them commanded by British regular officers. One regiment commanded by a native born American was the First Battalion of Pennsylvania Loyalists commanded by William Allen, but this seems to have been an unusual exception. A number of these provincial regiments were employed in Florida, both East and West, and the Caribbean including the bloody assault on Havana where they gave a good account of themselves. Native born Americans were unusual in the regular British regiments because those regiments were raised in Britain and then transported to America. Also the length of service and harsh discipline in the regular service seems to have dissuaded Americans from attempting to enlist in them. These regiments seemed to have done well on the battlefield. Washington despised them and voiced sentiments amounting to "take no prisoners" when dealing with them. In the terms of surrender at Yorktown the British were permitted to put who they wished on one ship which would be allowed to leave the Chesapeake, no questions asked. Cornwallis packed it with provincial troops fearing they would be 'ill used' by the American army if they fell into their hands. Loyalist ranger units on the frontier were both perpetrators and victims of massacres. As for your observation that the American Revolution was our first civil war, quite a number of historians have noted that, especially in the South. I am certain that a book paralleling the roles of the American Tories in the Revolution with that of the Unionists in the South during the Civil War would surprise quite a few readers, even the calling of the Unionists by the term Tories by the southern rebels. As I wrote above, what you see depends on where you stand. An excellent book on this topic is "The Good Americans: The loyalists in the American Revolution" by Wallace Brown.

 

[Burning Billy]

Overall and the rule of thumb for numbers is 1/3 patriots, 1/3 loyalists, 1/3 neutral (favored no side).

That is actually a popular myth based on a misquote of John Adams. Adams "one third" quote was referencing the French Revolution, not the American. A historian in the early 20th Century got it wrong and a lot of historians since have been repeating that mistake, without going back to check the original source.