Crypto-Loyalists of the South

[Barreldriver]

After some thought on past lectures pertaining to the founding of the United States there were some things that did not sit right. A standard statistic stated by old professors that I have been lectured by is the statistic of 33% Patriot vs 19% Loyalist in revolutionary British America. (PM with inquiries as to who these professors were as I do not feel that they would appreciate me using their names on public board associated with controversial topics)

If that statistic is indeed correct that leaves 48% unaccounted for left to be assumed to be "neutrals". I say these neutrals were rather Crypto-Loyalists too afraid of being terrorized by Patriots that they simply crawled into the woodwork so to speak until the conflict was over, emerging to pass on their cultural values as can be seen in some of the Southern States where Insular lineage dominates.

What is ironic is the South during the 19th Century had that Confederate mentality that contradicts loyalty to forms of rule like monarchy. The Southern states however had a cultural element that I believe to be a remnant of Loyalist voices. This represented in the Episcopalian leadership of the CSA, the regal airs of the minority of plantation owners so lord like, then the Appalachian back country folk as either poor lords owning smaller lands or peasants along with non-wealthy lowlanders as smaller lords or peasants.

So one sees a social order that mirrors those that once existed in the British Isle's only minus a king or queen allowing for a devolution from monarchy to a sort of Feudalism with plantation owners acting as the ruling nobles. One would think that if Loyalist numbers were really as low as 19% then why would this social order representative of things that are conventionally un-American be maintained?

[Joe McCarthy]

Why would the 'neutrals' be crypto-loyalists? The British Crown was the power in the colonies, not the revolutionaries. It took courage to be a Patriot knowing the odds against victory especially before Saratoga.


I do agree that a certain Tory spirit was stronger in the South though. Loyalist militia were much stronger in the South than in New England, certainly, and had the CSA won they would have likely become a sort of forward base for the British Empire.

None off this though makes the South or loyalists look good.

[Barreldriver]

Why would the 'neutrals' be crypto-loyalists? The British Crown was the power in the colonies, not the revolutionaries.

I'd think it would have something to do with the violent nature of the Patriots (the rabid behaviors in Boston, assaulting armed troops stationed for defense against potential French threat and goading them into attack) and their ability to appear stronger than they were via tract literature, if I remember the lectures right the Patriots were avid producers of pro-Patriot texts propaganda has power.

I do agree that a certain Tory spirit was stronger in the South though. Loyalist militia were much stronger in the South than in New England, certainly, and had the CSA won they would have likely become a sort of forward base for the British Empire.

None off this though makes the South or loyalists look good.

Depends on one's personal tastes.

[Logan]

A problem for the British was that where an army was set to combat the rebellion, a part of the neturals of the colonial population went to the rebels. Conversely, where there were no such forces... The use foreign units within the British army were detrimental in this sphere.

You as well had other support.

[Joe McCarthy]

A problem for the British was that where an army was set to combat the rebellion, a part of the neturals of the colonial population went to the rebels. Conversely, where there were no such forces... The use foreign units within the British army were detrimental in this sphere.

You as well had other support.

Yes, help that came after Saratoga, and I see no logic in believing neutrals had more reason to fear revolutionaries than the British until after that battle, if even then.

[Barreldriver]

I reread my OP and it seems I was vague in that it implies that I was suggesting all neutrals were crypto-Loyalists, a result of haste. Realistically I was thinking only a proportion of neutrals (unknown as we cannot go back in time), if it is reasonable for neutrals to have become Patriots then it could also work the other way especially in the South where certain social structures that can be perceived of as un-American survived echoing times of Feudalism (basically a similar order as was had under the crown only without the crown after its defeat and retreat all that was left were governors and plantation owners to act as noble like individuals hence a devolution of sorts into Feudalism).

If the Loyalists were only as few as 19% it would seem odd for such practices contradictory to what was used as reason for rebellion to survive if Loyalists really were that few. The only answer I can think of are that there were some neutrals that were crypto-Loyalists that boosted those numbers in secret I'm also trying to pay attention to the language used by folks during and after the war my own folks for instance never showed up as official Loyalsists yet during and after the revolt they referred to themselves as "Englishmen" up until the time for the War of 1812, I'm thinking that they too were secretly Loyalists (perhaps why they had to constantly abandon their homesteads of up to 448 acres and move from state to state until they landed in TN where no one knew 'em, I would note that even under gavelkind there were only 4 inheritors to the 448 acre land in 1782 so still a decent chunk of land for the heirs dwarfing their possessions in TN until the 1920's so there would have been little reason to leave Virginia for inheritance reasons) and that maybe others were too as it would be odd for them to be alone in this mindset, otherwise why not drop the English identity as soon as rebellion started out or after it was won?

[Logan]

Yes, help that came after Saratoga, and I see no logic in believing neutrals had more reason to fear revolutionaries than the British until after that battle, if even then.

'He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.'

Declaration of Independence

[Magister Eckhart]

'He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.'

One of the most perfidious and untrue works of libel ever penned by a European hand. Luther was more right to call the Pope the Antichrist than Jefferson was to slander the name of His Majesty in this way.

Also, book you might want to look at, Barreldriver:

[Logan]

One of the most perfidious and untrue works of libel ever penned by a European hand. Luther was more right to call the Pope the Antichrist than Jefferson was to slander the name of His Majesty in this way.

He had a point of truth. It was propaganda, of which all are guilty.

'All's fair in love and war.'

John Lyly

War is hell.

General William Tecumseh Sherman

[Magister Eckhart]

He had a point of truth. It was propaganda, of which all are guilty.

'All's fair in love and war.'

John Lyly

War is hell.

General William Tecumseh Sherman

Fair cop; it is indeed propaganda, though. There's hardly a word of real truth in that whole document, to be honest - it's caused more blasted trouble than any other piece of paper in the history of this country. The only lie that did more damage was probably the Donation of Constantine.