As a member of another chat site about the Rev, I have been privileged to read a lovely 1940-ish write-up about Nova Scotia immediately after the Rev. It's by an author/historian who took special interest in Loyalist roots in that country. (Drove right through the town of "Rawdon" myself!) Many members of the Briitsh Legion-which was a Loyalist group-were from the Carolinas. As Tarleton's Legion took casualties from whatever sources, some places were filled by local Loyalists. After the war, many of these people were not allowed to stay, and after a very long journey wound up in Nova Scotia fighting for survival. (I agree with John about most Southern Loyalists staying-but maybe Tarleton's Legion was an exception!) It's a very touching story, because regardless of which side they were on, they were from my neck of the woods. The story is told by an elderly woman recounting her history to a soldier returned from WWI. The loveliest part of it was when she said that there were places in the interior of Nova Scotia where people still spoke with a slight Southernness. Not as we know a southern accent, but with a difference of vowels and cadences which derived directly from 18th century Carolina. As a southerner, I find that very poignent. If anyone is interested in the story, I'll forward it to you personally. Holley
"James L. Stokes" <jlstokes@supernet.com> wrote: >John, > I think your being too hard nosed. These are probably the only numbers >we will ever have, they come from a reliable source who cites numbers that >are against his interests, so just on that point we have to acknowledge >them. Acknowledge, yes. [Though I still haven't seen anyone cite when or where Adams gave those numbers. Knowing the context might give some basis for Adams' 'fudge factor'.- or if he was even talking about our Revolution.] But we do have other estimates. Some folks have alluded to Adams making contradictory statements himself. Here's what Ambrose Serle wrote in April of 78 after discussing the numbers for an evening with Joseph Galloway. [For anyone who isn't familiar with these two gents; Ambrose Serle was secretary to Lord Howe & in my opinion as good a diarist as John Adams. Joseph Galloway was a former Continental Congressman who commanded a great deal of respect. He was one of the PA delegation that left the Congress when the rest voted for Independence.] I'm not sure if I agree with all Serle's numbers- but it is notable that he puts 'neuters' at one half. And this is a man who has spent 2 yrs in occupied NY, has interviewed many prisoners, and is now in occupied Philly. His bottom line is - 100,000 military age men left in 1778 30-50% Neutral 20% Loyalist 30-50% Patriots [Not that far off from Adams' numbers, except for Loyalists, where one would expect Serle to be generous.] "Diary of Ambrose Serle" pp287-8 "And as to men, allowing the number of Inhabitants at the Beginning of the Rebellion to have been what the Rebels estimated -- 3 millions White & Black; by the best Calculation, the number of fighting men of both kinds could not amount at first to more than about 220,000. Of these (and these mostly, if not entirely, Whites) not less than 50,000 have perished by End of the Year 1777, upon a nigh Computation, by Sickness & the Sword, the People here not having the requisite Stamina to endure the Rigors of Campaigns. The Camp Diseases, being contagious, have carried off great numbers of other People, who had no medicines to assist them; the little to be procured being all taken up for the Use of the Rebel-Army. Since the Beginning of this Year, they have lost by Desertion, Disease & the Sword, near 4000 men, who can be accounted for by us, besides those, who are gone off unknown. There then remain not many more than 150,000; and one third these at least may be estimated Blacks. We have then 100,000. Of these we must make a Division into Friends, Enemies, moderate or Neuters, and of the last it is presumed, as in other Cases of the kind, there are most; possibly, one half of the whole. But, saying, one third, and allowing that we have 20,000 Friends scattered over this Continent (though it be credited we have many more), it then proves very clearly why Mr. Washington's Army is at so low an Ebb, and why such Extremities are used to compel men to join it. It also proves, that the present British Force, duly exerted, has but little to fear; and that this unnatural Outrage, deprived of foreign Assistance & destitute of internal Succours, could not possibly last long, and of course that Peace might soon restored to this distracted Land. > As a politician it would have been Adam's business to know how people >thought. Not for the greatest part of the war, when he was an envoy in France. It s then his duty to do whatever Congress told him. And even in the beginning, he was elected by the legislature of MA, so he was representing MA first, if any bias was to show, and he need only impress the legislature to be re-elected. > I don't think any academic can afford to ignore the thirds suggested by >John Adams since there are no better numbers to replace them and I don't >think there ever will be any better numbers. I offer this set by Serle, and invite others to post numbers they've seen anywhere by participants from both sides. [or even better by a 'neuter'] I think when and where they were compiled is of utmost importance because the numbers were so fluid both in reference to time and geography. I'd be willing to wager that at least a third was a member of at least 2 of the 3 groups at some time between 1776-1783. Jim [Elbrecht- lest someone just looks at signatures]
Hi I'm really, really new to this list. My gr-gr-gr-grandfather from Ireland married a lady from Scotland. I'm not sure if they married in Europe or in America (November, 1789). Anyway, how can you tell if someone is Scots-Irish or the other way around or does it matter? Thanks from the newbie here! Marian On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:55:17 EDT Huguenaute@aol.com writes: > 1. CAROLINA SCOTS by Kelly has some interesting things to say about > loyaltieI > am now looking for some of my own ancestors; think they are > Scots-Irish but > may be Irish or Scottish surnames: BLAKLEY CALFFEE / KALFIE JONES > WILLSON > > 2. Do you have any suggestions for reading about Carolinians of this > > background? > > 3. I have a copy of CAROLINA SCOTS by Kelly but found none of my > direct > ancestors there. > Diane in VA > using screenname<HUGUENAUTE@aol.com> researching Mama's GIBBS (RI to > MA to NY > to SC) / HAMILTON (a Church of Ireland minister)/ HARALSON > (SCANDINAVIAN SEA > CAPTAIN) / SMITH (CORNISH INDENTURED SERVANT to VA then BERMUDA then > in 1776 > SC where he was a legislator/ SPENCER / McCLELLAND (BLADEN co NC to > TN to MS > then SC in time for the CW) / ROBINSON (1700s Bladen NC)/ MAYRANT > (Fr Hug to > SC to MS to SC) / POTTS (Northumberland to SC to MS) / WILLSON (SC > to NC)/ > WYNNE (VA) BLAKLEY (Kingstree Williamsburg Co SC) and Papa's NEW > ENGLAND > BERRY / BOLLINS / BOWEN / ESTEY / CARPENTER / DWINNELL / GOULD / > HARRIS / > HAYWARD/HOWARD / KENNISTON / LEONARD / NEAL / PRAY / STRATTON / > MOREY / > WHEELER / WILBER / WOOLEY / WILLIAMS / WITHERILL Most of these > surnames are > probably my direct ancestors but I write their names and information > in my > charts with pencil because the information is in family history > books- I have > not yet done the research for myself. Since my ancestors were from > every one > of the colonies except (so far) DE, I am doing a general overview so > if I go > to an archive or repository I will have a number of back-up plans. I > just > don't have the time or money to waste on trips where I can't find > anything. > SURNAMES COX and HENDERSON occur in my husband's family. I was born > in NC; > mother SC; father VT; husband and grandmother GA... > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >
Subject: Concord in the Revolution - Part 1 of 4 Source: History of the Town of Concord, Middlesex County, Massachusetts by Lemuel Shattuck Boston: Russell, Odiorne and Company - John Stacy - 1835 Appendix No. II p.352 Notices of Military Service Performed by the People of Concord in the Revolution. April 20, 1775. The officers in the regiment to which these men were attached were: John Nixon, Colonel Thomas Nixon, Lieut. Colonel John Buttrick, Major The officers of two companies of 84 and 103 men belonged to Concord. Joseph Butler, Captain Silas Walker, Leiutenant Edward Richardson, Ensign Sergeants of one company were: Moses Richardson Wareham Wheeler Joseph Chesley Edward Heywood Abishai Brown, Captain Daniel Taylor, Lieutenant Silas Mann, Ensign Sergeants of the other company were: Nathan Stow Ephraim Minott John Cobs Bradbury Robinson Rev. William Emerson was Chaplain a part of the time. Dr. Joseph Hunt was mate to Dr. Foster in Cambridge hospital. The men enlisted the last week in April and the officers were commissioned June 5th. At the Battle of Bunker Hill, Captain Butler's company under command of Lieut. Walker, were engaged at the northern declivity of the hill by the "rail fence"; and a part of the other company were on guard, and not ordered on in season to take part in the battle. Benajmin Ball received a mortal wound, of which he died in Boston. Amos Wheeler, Ephraim Minot and some others were wounded; the first died of his wounds at Cambridge, a short time after. As soon as the news of the battle arrived, the whole of the militia marched to Cam- bridge, but returned after a few days. A chest of clothing, and other articles necessary for the wounded, were contributed by the "patriotic ladies" in Concord, and sent to the hospital in Cambridge, for which they received public thanks. "This instance of their humanity and public spirit," say a public notice, "does honor to the town, and will, we hope, induce others to imitate so good an example." During this campaign, Danforth Hayward and William Buttrick died. January 20, 1776 Middlesex was ordered to raise a regiment of 571 men; Concord 26, Bedford 6, Acton 13, Lincoln 8. Concord, however, furnished 36. John Robinson was Colonel; John Buttrick Lieut. Colonel; Samuel McCobb, Major; Joseph Thaxter, Chaplain; Nathan Stow, Quarter-Master; Jabez Brown, Adjutant. The captains' names were: John Ford Simon Edgel Josiah Warren Asahel Wheeler Benjamin Edgel Job Shattuck John Lamont Silan Mann was a lieutenant there under Wheeler. p.358 A new organization of the militia was made in February, 1776, and Concord, Lexington, Weston, Acton and Lincoln were assigned to the 3d Regiment. Oliver Prescott was then chosen Brig. General; Eleazer Brooks, Colonel in this regiment, Francis Faulkner, Lieut. Colonel; Nathan Barrett, 1st Major; Samuel Lamson, 2d Major; and Joseph Adams, Surgeon. The following men were the officers of the several companies: Company Location Captain 1st Lieutenant 2d Lieutenant ______________________________________________________________________ 1. Concord George Minnott Edward Wright Emerson Cogswell 2. Weston Jonathan Fiske Matthew Hobbs Josiah Severns 3. Lexington John Bridge William Munroe Ebenezer White 4. Concord Thomas Hubbard Ephraim Wheeler Amos Hosmer 5. Acton Simon Hunt John Heald, Jr. Benjamin Brabrook 6. Lincoln Samuel Farrar Samuel Hoar James Parks 7. Concord Thomas Barrett Samuel Heald Asa Green. Colonel James Barrett was appointed to raise men in this county December 2d, 1775; and was muster-master from December 28th 1776 til his death. Capt. Joseph Hosmer succeeded him in 1780. The Concord Light Infantry was organized soon after, (of which Joseph Hosmer was Captain; Samuel Jones, Lieutenant; and Samuel Hosmer, 2d Lieutenant); and attached to this regiment. March 1, 1776. This was a detachment of nearly all the militia, to take possession of Dorchester Heights just before the British evacuated Boston. The officers of the 3d Regiment above mentioned were generally there. An attack on Boston was anticipated, and a considerable quantity of lint and bandages was sent from Concord to the hospital. April 9, 1776. This was an enlisted company for the purpose of fortifying and defending Boston and its vicinity. Officers: Josiah Whitney of Harvard, Colonel Ephraim Jackson of Newton, Lieut. Colonel John Miller, Major For the Middlesex Company: Abishai Brown, Captain Abraham Andrews, 1st Lieut. Silas Proctor, 2d Lieut. Jeremiah Williams Sergeant Edward Heywood, Sergeant All of Concord. They were stationed at Hull. This company assisted in taking Colonel Campbell, about three hundred Highlanders and several provision ships. They left Concord June 1st. Thaddeus Blood, Esq., is the only person now living (1835) in Concord who belonged to this company. To be continued, Part II - p.354 Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth
The archives and Records Administration (NARA) has changed its domain name from nara. gov You'll now find them at archives.gov If you lose the links to their downloadable Form 180, their genealogy page or their military records page, there are links to all of them (the new ones) on the Genealogy Links page at good old americanrevolution.org Best regards, Ed -- For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG
John, I think your being too hard nosed. These are probably the only numbers we will ever have, they come from a reliable source who cites numbers that are against his interests, so just on that point we have to acknowledge them. As a politician it would have been Adam's business to know how people thought. I don't think any academic can afford to ignore the thirds suggested by John Adams since there are no better numbers to replace them and I don't think there ever will be any better numbers. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Robertson" <jr@jrshelby.com> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [A-REV] Some thoughts on allegiance > At 05:50 AM 6/10/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > > I don't think we should take John Adams numbers as rigid, he had no real > >way of knowing for certain, there were no polls or anything like them. I'm > >sure, as a politician, he thought he had an idea of how the people in his > >area thought and he had enough contacts with other regions to have some idea > >of how people thought there. I do think they are probably close because > >they run against his interest, I'm sure he would prefer if the number were > >80% revolutionary and 20% loyalists. The other reason I think these numbers > >are probably close is because most colonies had to resort to some sort of > >draft, in Pennsylvania it was acknowledged that the draft was the result of > >the inability to gather enough volunteers. > > My problem with the way JA's "rule-of-thirds" is used is that otherwise > bright and objective people, some with letters after their names and with > respectable scholarly books to their credit, tend to treat it as a > statistically valid piece of data, based upon the *unquestioned* authority > of John Adams, both of which are intellectual nonsense. All who do so wink > at the fact that, under other circumstances, Adams can be found to offer a > different breakdown. Out of all fairness to Adams, I believe that he would > be aghast at the use that has been made of his guesstimate (which is all it > was or was intended to be). He was, I believe, just expressing what no one > would have argued with, "Some were for, some were against, and some were > neither". In short, there was no clear mandate. > > John Adams would have been no better authority on this than any of dozens > of other leaders, nor would he have considered himself such. One could > question just how well Adams would have been conversant with attitudes > outside of his own New England. It reminds me of the old blues lyrics > resurrected on a modern Winton Marsallis cd, "I don't know, but I've been > told..." > > I'd like to have known the opinion of Nathanael Greene (the only general to > serve throughout the entire war from start to finish, in *both* the > Northern and Southern campaigns). Daniel Morgan would have had a similar > solid basis for an opinion. > > During the Southern Campaign during the last few years of the war, British > war policy was mistakenly based almost entirely on accepting the views of > some highly articulate southern loyalists (no longer living in the > colonies) who had long and loudly proclaimed that the South was > overwhelmingly loyalist (they were motivated by wanting British troops to > regain their confiscated estates). Cornwallis put in some very hard miles > between Charleston on the coast to the Dan River in Virginia and never > found this "loyalist majority" on which their strategy was so dependent. > > I have recently learned that Cornwallis, after Guilford Courthouse and > after regaining his army at Wilmington and on his way to Yorktown, waged an > entirely different (an consequently more effective) kind of war. He kept > his army together (no more manning of scattered outposts), ***didn't seek > loyalist support***, used the concept of "mounted infantry" taught him by > backcountry militia (later adopted by European armies and enabled by a good > supply of fine Virginia horses never made available to Greene's army!), > stayed only briefly in any area, and cut a wide swath as he moved through > Virginia. It would be interesting to know if Cornwallis (a British general > who served actively in both the North and the South) would have agreed with > the Adams "rule-of-thirds". [BTW, the Cornwallis we saw at Yorktown seems > like an entirely different man from the general one *always* had to take > seriously in the Southern Campaign]. > > John Robertson > > > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >
This past weekend, I had an opportunity to visit the Hayes Station battle site in Laurens County SC. This is the site where Col. Hayes (one of the militia colonels at Cowpens) commanded a fort. After Yorktown, loyalist Col. "Bloody Bill" Cunningham attacked the fort, forced those inside to surrender, then murdered them after they surrendered, including two sons of Col. James Williams (killed at Kings Mountain). The only place I have seen a description of its location is in Barefoot's useful "Touring SC Rev War Sites", but in this case he is bad wrong. He shows it as being at the intersection of SC 56 and SC 560. It can only be reached from a road identified as SC 30-46 running southeast from the community of Milton, turning on a road identified as Williams Road (less than 2 miles s.e. from Milton), driving until you reach a gate (apparently installed by a hunting club). You walk past the gate about 75 yards and there is a granite marker (placed by the DAR in 1910) enclosed in an iron picket fence (with some of the most lethally-pointed pickets that I recall seeing!). Road maps, including that below, show Williams Road as a road running from SC 30-46 all the way thru to SC 56, but this is no longer true. Where you have to park is just beyond a private residence. The owner, a black man, came out to see what we were up to, and was cordial. His dog, though big and well-behaved, was less cordial but just checked us out and went back into his yard. You can make yourself a map to this site (if it is of interest to you) by going to http://mapquest.com/maps/latlong.adp and in the bottom portion, enter 34.34980 -81.87449 Click on the 3rd "zoom in" marker from the top Click on "Big map" John Robertson
These immigrants, now known as Scotch-Irish, did not come as soon as the Germans and Swiss. Few if any came prior to 1719 and they settled on disputed lands in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Some later went to Virginia. The authorities in Philadelphia complained of these people as "bold and indigent strangers." that in 1725 at least 100,000 acres of land in and beyond the Welsh Tract and German properties were possessed "by persons (including Germans) who set down and improved it (Indian and Pennsylvania lands) without any right to it." It was difficult to dispossess them. In 1730 the Government in Philadelphia again complained of the so called Irish Invasion as "audacious and disorderly for having by force, taken possession of the Conestoga Manor of some 15,000 acres. More than once the Sheriff expelled them and burned the cabins." Many of my ancestors were Scotch-Irish and fought as Patriots. Lloyd D. Ellis
At 07:01 AM 6/10/2002 -0400, you wrote: >We decided to visit one of the MANY marvelous War for American >Independence sites in the upstate NY and VT area. Our choice for today was >Mt. Independence, which, as you know, is on the east shore of Lake >Champlain just southeast of Ft. Ticonderoga. If you're pressed for time >and don't intend to read any further, let me just give you one word of >advice, "GO!". <g> This was a great post. It would be good if others would post their report of visiting significant Rev War sites, parks, etc. It would also be helpful if you posted such *upcoming* events before the fact so those in the area might have a chance to attend in person. A few years ago, I attended the first Kings Mountain forum, and wrote a report of it with a synopsis of what each speaker said. I still have it online somewhere. I received many emails from persons who appreciated being able to attend "vicariously". Why not share with the list your visits to significant Rev War sites and events in your area? Please try to keep it limited to (the very wide) topics of the list. John Robertson
At 05:50 AM 6/10/2002 -0400, you wrote: > I don't think we should take John Adams numbers as rigid, he had no real >way of knowing for certain, there were no polls or anything like them. I'm >sure, as a politician, he thought he had an idea of how the people in his >area thought and he had enough contacts with other regions to have some idea >of how people thought there. I do think they are probably close because >they run against his interest, I'm sure he would prefer if the number were >80% revolutionary and 20% loyalists. The other reason I think these numbers >are probably close is because most colonies had to resort to some sort of >draft, in Pennsylvania it was acknowledged that the draft was the result of >the inability to gather enough volunteers. My problem with the way JA's "rule-of-thirds" is used is that otherwise bright and objective people, some with letters after their names and with respectable scholarly books to their credit, tend to treat it as a statistically valid piece of data, based upon the *unquestioned* authority of John Adams, both of which are intellectual nonsense. All who do so wink at the fact that, under other circumstances, Adams can be found to offer a different breakdown. Out of all fairness to Adams, I believe that he would be aghast at the use that has been made of his guesstimate (which is all it was or was intended to be). He was, I believe, just expressing what no one would have argued with, "Some were for, some were against, and some were neither". In short, there was no clear mandate. John Adams would have been no better authority on this than any of dozens of other leaders, nor would he have considered himself such. One could question just how well Adams would have been conversant with attitudes outside of his own New England. It reminds me of the old blues lyrics resurrected on a modern Winton Marsallis cd, "I don't know, but I've been told..." I'd like to have known the opinion of Nathanael Greene (the only general to serve throughout the entire war from start to finish, in *both* the Northern and Southern campaigns). Daniel Morgan would have had a similar solid basis for an opinion. During the Southern Campaign during the last few years of the war, British war policy was mistakenly based almost entirely on accepting the views of some highly articulate southern loyalists (no longer living in the colonies) who had long and loudly proclaimed that the South was overwhelmingly loyalist (they were motivated by wanting British troops to regain their confiscated estates). Cornwallis put in some very hard miles between Charleston on the coast to the Dan River in Virginia and never found this "loyalist majority" on which their strategy was so dependent. I have recently learned that Cornwallis, after Guilford Courthouse and after regaining his army at Wilmington and on his way to Yorktown, waged an entirely different (an consequently more effective) kind of war. He kept his army together (no more manning of scattered outposts), ***didn't seek loyalist support***, used the concept of "mounted infantry" taught him by backcountry militia (later adopted by European armies and enabled by a good supply of fine Virginia horses never made available to Greene's army!), stayed only briefly in any area, and cut a wide swath as he moved through Virginia. It would be interesting to know if Cornwallis (a British general who served actively in both the North and the South) would have agreed with the Adams "rule-of-thirds". [BTW, the Cornwallis we saw at Yorktown seems like an entirely different man from the general one *always* had to take seriously in the Southern Campaign]. John Robertson
A book that has a great section on the Scotch-Irish is the book "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America", by David Hackett Fischer. I have Pennsylvania Scotch-Irish ancestry (in Bucks county during the war and then on to Lycoming county) and am always looking for information on them. Before I started doing my genealogy I hadn't even heard the term, "Scotch-Irish". Julianne
Yesterday was a lovely day in the great Northeast. As many of you know, this year marks the 225th anniversary of Gen. John (Gentleman Johnny) Burgoynes invasion of the Colonies from Montreal.* We decided to visit one of the MANY marvelous War for American Independence sites in the upstate NY and VT area. Our choice for today was Mt. Independence, which, as you know, is on the east shore of Lake Champlain just southeast of Ft. Ticonderoga. If youre pressed for time and dont intend to read any further, let me just give you one word of advice, GO!. <g> Mt. Independence got its name from Patriot soldiers after the reading of the Declaration of Independence. The soldiers stationed on the Mt. first heard the Declaration read to them on July 28, 1776. The Visitors Center at Mt. Independence is great - not huge, but more than large enough to house all the displays, etc., germane to the subject matter. There is a short movie that describes the history of the site, and there are artifacts that were found during various archaeological digs. There is a small area that serves as a gift shop where one can buy the usual tourist items, but the serious researcher can also purchase some wonderful and hard-to-find books! One display in particular, however, was my personal favorite. In the center of the main room is a concrete - uh - sculpture, if you will. Its a huge piece of concrete carved into the shapes (very large) of soldiers, etc On one end is the image of a British soldier and on the other is a Patriot soldier. No big deal, right? Theres more! Some very clever person has used a camera or other projection device to superimpose a movie clip of a mans face over that of the concrete soldiers. As you gaze at the visage of the soldier, you see the eyes and mouth move as the statues speak. Its fantastic! You know its a concrete image, but the film projection makes it look as if the soldiers are really speaking!!! The actor-soldiers tell the visitor about what life is like (yep, they speak in present tense) either as a British soldier taking the high ground there, or as a Patriot soldier dealing with the hazards and hardships of the environment, which they felt was far greater a challenge than fighting Burgoyne! Then, when youve steeped yourself in the historical facts surrounding Mt. Independence, out you go to hike around the trails on the top of the little peninsula. There are 2.5 miles of trails and along them are various places of interest: old foundation of an officers quarters, location of the hospital, barracks, various batteries, quarry, supply road, blockhouse, etc. And best of all there are places where you can easily see the lake and at least one spot from which you directly overlook the lake and see the distinctive red roof of Ft. Ticonderoga. It is great to actually SEE the layout of the staging area: the fort itself, the narrowness (1/4 mile!) of Lake Champlain, your own position atop Mt. Independence on the east side of the lake and Mt. Defiance on the west side and just to the south of the fort. Walking the trails was a joy! The trails are wide and well-kept, and there was no litter at all. Wonderful! And the entire place is surprisingly quiet. It was a Sunday in June, but the place was not overrun with tourists. In fact, I saw only one other small party as I walked the trails enjoying the wildlife, the greenery and the quiet interrupted only once by a train whistle from the NY side of the lake. If youd like to read/see more about Mt. Independence, which is owned by the State of VT, heres the URL: http://www.state.vt.us/dca/historic/mt_indy.htm Hope some of you will be able to make the trip to Mt. Independence to enjoy one of our nations historic treasures! Susan *The Northern Campaign, the organization that is coordinating a great series of reenactments and commemorations all the way down Burgoynes route, has a web site where you can read more about the schedule of events. http://www.thenortherncampaign.org/
John Robertson <jr@jrshelby.com> wrote: >My reading has led me to conclude that the allegiances (patriot/rebel, >loyalist/tory, neutral) were not nearly so deep nor nearly so permanent as >modern descendents would like to believe. The choice was not nearly so >clear cut as our hindsight would lead us to believe. I've reached the same conclusion- with most of my reading being NY & NJ. -snip- >We often hear John Adams being quoted as an authority for saying that the >population was divided evenly into thirds (for/against/neutral). Several years ago [before I learned how fleeting memory was & began to keep more detailed notes] I read a historian's reasoning behind *his* belief that Adams was talking about the French Revolution, anyway. I've tried to relocate the passage without success & I've never seen the location of Adams' original passage mentioned so I could judge for myself. Was it in letters to Jefferson? Jim
I've heard the claim before that somehow the Penns were forcing the Scotch-Irish on the frontier but the fact is that the Scotch Irish went to the frontier on their own, that was where the cheap land was located. In fact, if the Penns had one problem it was that the Scotch Irish were settling on land the Penns hadn't even bought from the Indians yet and so weren't paying anyone for the land. I've never heard of any complaint about the numbers of Scotch Irish coming to Pa., the Penns were in the land business and I'm sure they would sell land to anyone who could pay the freight. Benjamin Franklin had some complaints about the number of Germans coming to Pa. He saw Philadelphia as the intellectual capital of the New World and he was concerned that so many Germans were coming that the official language of Pa. would be German. As a matter of fact he tried to have English declared the official language but failed. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty Silfies" <b.silfies2@worldnet.att.net> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: [A-REV] Scotch-Irish > Just some facts from the book The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania by > Wayland F. Dunaway. (If they came from Scotland they were Scots, if they > lived in Ireland for a few generations they were Scotch-Irish) The > resettlement of the Scots into Ireland was started mainly in the time of > James the First. It was to repopulate a part of Ireland that had been > decimated by war. The Scots who received land were not allowed to hire the > native Irish, most of whom were very poor and uneducated. The two groups > did not intermarry or have much to do with one another. Even then the > seeds for the present troubles in northern Ireland were being sown. > > As has been said the British Government began to tax them unfairly, and > caused the ruination of the weaving trade among others. During the British > Civil Wars Cromwell also caused devastation,thus setting the stage for the > immigrations of the 1700s. "It is computed that from 1728 to 1750 Ulster > lost one-fourth of her manufacturing population, and that the counties of > Down, Antrim, Armagh, and Londonderry "were almost emptied of their > protestant inhabitants" In the great exodus of beginning 1771, Ulster is > said to have lost one fourth of its population and one fourth of its > trading cash within five years." In another place in the book the estimate > is given at 250,000 immigrants, and the overwhelming majority were > protestants. Most of them came to Pennsylvania. After the French and > Indian War many of them went south along the Great Wagon Road to cheaper > lands in North and South Carolina. > > Another book on this subject, which I cannot at the moment find, talked > about how the Penn brothers and the other PA leaders were so appalled at > the amount of Scotch-Irish that were pouring into PA that they were afraid > they would be overwhelmed. The Penn brothers actively encouraged them to > settle along the frontier. Since the earlier PA settlers were Quakers and > peaceful German farmers they felt that the more "aggressive" > Scotch-Irish would provide a buffer zone against the Indians, and help to > secure western PA from the claims by Maryland and Virginia. The > Scotch-Irish were attracted to PA because this colony had the most > religious freedom during this time period. > > Betty > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >
Hi John, I don't think we should take John Adams numbers as rigid, he had no real way of knowing for certain, there were no polls or anything like them. I'm sure, as a politician, he thought he had an idea of how the people in his area thought and he had enough contacts with other regions to have some idea of how people thought there. I do think they are probably close because they run against his interest, I'm sure he would prefer if the number were 80% revolutionary and 20% loyalists. The other reason I think these numbers are probably close is because most colonies had to resort to some sort of draft, in Pennsylvania it was acknowledged that the draft was the result of the inability to gather enough volunteers. I think its true that these numbers flexed somewhat based on circumstances and regions. At one point, when the British occupied Philadelphia, there was a great concern about the number of people who were shifting their loyalties towards the British, according to Gary Nash, the historican (I'll give the full citation when I can find his book). People were making good money providing provisions to the British and this caused a shift in loyalties. New Jersey even began making some show arrests to try to stem the tide but the proBritish sentiments only lasted until the British abandoned Philadelphia. I think its an interesting question just how democratic the American Revolution was, your British loyalists who thought two thirds were against it may not have been too far off but we don't really know. If we assume the thirds Adams talks about were only males we still don't know how many of them would have had the right to vote. None the less, I think this is an interesting question, fortunately it turned out for the best in any case. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Robertson" <jr@jrshelby.com> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 7:38 AM Subject: [A-REV] Some thoughts on allegiance > My reading has led me to conclude that the allegiances (patriot/rebel, > loyalist/tory, neutral) were not nearly so deep nor nearly so permanent as > modern descendents would like to believe. The choice was not nearly so > clear cut as our hindsight would lead us to believe. One's choice to be on > one side or the other, in some cases, was not made voluntarily. It was > not at all uncommon for persons to change sides, sometimes more than once. > > Sometimes when a person was captured by their opponents, an option was > given them to switch sides. Since the alternatives were not very > attractive, the option was frequently taken (even if only temporarily). > > Near the end of the conflict, in the South, anyway, a person who had been a > Loyalist could "erase that record" by serving a certain number of months in > the patriot/rebel militia. Even after such a vitriolic civil war, *most* > loyalists, if they had done nothing really bad, stayed on their land (or > returned to it, by community consent) and continued to attend the same > church they had attended before (but perhaps not allowed to vote on church > matters for 3 years!). The way they lived with it was to "agree not to > talk about it". Many modern descendents of loyalists in the area are > dumbfounded to discover their ancestors were loyalists (the grandchildren > were not told which side granddaddy fought on, they has merely "assumed" he > was a patriot). > > We are sometimes given the impression that after the war, all those who had > been Loyalists lost everything they had and had to leave the country. This > is believed to have been true for only one loyalist in five. Locally, in > some cases, it could well have been five out of five, but overall, the > fraction was much smaller. > > We often hear John Adams being quoted as an authority for saying that the > population was divided evenly into thirds (for/against/neutral). If you > dig deep enough into his writings, you can find him giving other > breakdowns, dependent upon the point he was making. I have heard one > unrepentant loyalist descendent use this breakdown in his chop-logic for > declaring the US government being an "illegal" government (since 2/3 did > not favot it)! I don't think anyone can argue with there being "some" > for, "some" against, and "some" on the fence. It is far too simplistic to > say that there were equal numbers of each, and that this distribution never > changed during 7 or 8 years of conflict. There would have been a lot of > ebb and flow into and out of these "camps". In 1775, I believe it would be > hard to make a case that there was any substantial percentage of the > population favoring independence, and that the vast majority of the > population could have been placed in a category of "concerned about other > things". As the war ground on, the percentage who came to conclude that > independence was not only a viable option but the most viable option would > have increased substantially. As the fortunes of one side or the other > improved, there would have been some shifting of position among many who > wanted to position themselves (and their property) "out of harm's way". It > would seem reasonable to me that after Yorktown, if there had been a > Gallup-type poll, it would have been found that there was a substantial > increase in those favoring independence! So rather than there being some > fixed distribution or allegiances, this would have been a dynamic > ever-changing situation. > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >
In a message dated 6/9/2002 2:17:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, janheil@attbi.com writes: << In 1821 Chief Justice John Jay said to his nephew William Heathcote DeLancey: "let me tell you, William: the *true* history of the American Revolution can *never* be written". >> This is true of the true history of anything. It's well-known that two witnesses to the same event are very apt to give conflicting testimony. Anne
Chris: Re your query about: "...French Soliders that served in the French Army under Lafayette..." The answer is none. At least not in the American Revolution. LaFayette was a Major General in the *American* army, not the French Army. Please clarify your question. Best regards, Ed -- For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG
Ladies & Gentlemen - Is there any know listings of French Soliders that served in the French Army under Lafayette?? Thank you, Chris Smithson
John's 'southern narrative' is similar to the Maine experience. > My reading has led me to conclude that the allegiances (patriot/rebel, > loyalist/tory, neutral) were not nearly so deep nor nearly so permanent as > modern descendents would like to believe. The choice was not nearly so > clear cut as our hindsight would lead us to believe. One's choice to be on > one side or the other, in some cases, was not made voluntarily. It was > not at all uncommon for persons to change sides, sometimes more than once. There are a lot of useless stereotypes in use today -- i.e., Tories were the landowners and the Sons of Liberty were a bunch of thieves and thugs -- etc., etc., etc. While there are cases supporting these stereotypes, there are as many cases which support exactly the opposite conditions I think to were several factors involved. I believe that principal factor is that most of the Americans really would perferred not to have chosen sides. By 'most' I mean more than 50%, not Adam's thirds. Secondly, I believe that the political sentiment changed over time as people tired of the deprivations of war. History has shown that the public support of a war declines over time. The AWI 'shooting war' ran for six to eight years depending when one considered the shooting to be over. This was the second longest war in American history with only the Vietnam War being longer (OK! I acknowledge you Korean War vets who claim that war still continues). Finally, geographical location contributed significantly to one's sentiments. The area controlled by the various troops frequently changed. For example, the 'boundaries' marking the New York city perimeter fluctuated but basically resulted in a large 'no man's land' buffer zone ruled by anarchy. This area became uninhabitable because the British/Hessian/Provincial troops would raid on a foraging party on one day and the American foraging party would come the next day followed by the 'cowboys' (as the thugs were then called) followed by the other side's 'cowboys' later in the week. Then, of course, periodically the sides would go out shooting at each other. > Sometimes when a person was captured by their opponents, an option was > given them to switch sides. Since the alternatives were not very > attractive, the option was frequently taken (even if only temporarily). "Captured" sets the bar too high. Any time the settlement/family/person was absorbed into an area under control of one side or the other one's public allegiance typically matched that of the prevailing force. When the British landed at Majabigwaduce [now Castine ME] a proclamation was issued requiring all settlers to come in and sign an oath of allegegiance to the crown. A total of 691 did so. Later 16 were proscribed for breaking their oath by being involved in the American counterattack. Manny later claimed that their oath was non-binding because it was made under duress. What is the story about crossing one's fingers while swearing to tell the truth. . . . > Near the end of the conflict, in the South, anyway, a person who had been a > Loyalist could "erase that record" by serving a certain number of months in > the patriot/rebel militia. Even after such a vitriolic civil war, *most* > loyalists, if they had done nothing really bad, stayed on their land (or > returned to it, by community consent) and continued to attend the same > church they had attended before (but perhaps not allowed to vote on church > matters for 3 years!). The way they lived with it was to "agree not to > talk about it". Many modern descendents of loyalists in the area are > dumbfounded to discover their ancestors were loyalists (the grandchildren > were not told which side granddaddy fought on, they has merely "assumed" he > was a patriot). With the peace of 1783, approximately 600 persons made up the Penobscot Association of Loyalists who went to Nova Scotia [now Charlotte county, New Brunswick] where each adult male received a 100 acre farm lot plus a town lot in St Andrews. A substantial portion of the refugees who had lived in the Penobscot area prior to the British occupation returned to their original properties in Maine. Some sold their Canadian holdings and some left a son or son-in-law on the property. A large portion of the refugees had settled at Penobscot in the belief that the new boundary would be the Penobscot River and had no lasting ties to the area. In fact, the new province between the Penobscot and St Croix rivers was to be called New Ireland and Andrew Oliver was to be the royal governor, etc., etc. Following Cornwallis' Yorktown surrender, the locals at Penobscot started mending bridges. For example, Captain Thomas Fletcher was George Washington's intermediary to the Penobscot Indians in 1776 and in 1782 he is trading at the store at the British Fort Geroge. Until Kenneth Roberts wrote his novel "Oliver Wiswell" which presented the American Loyalist's viewpoint, one never mentioned a relative who was a Loyalist. Even then, there was much controversy because Robert's ventured into territory theretofore considered tabboo. In fact, it was not uncommon to find families with members allied to both sides. In one family hanging in my tree, seven of eleven children were born before June 1767, viz= three boys and four girls: three of the four girls married Loyalists and the two oldest boys served in both militia and Continental service. Another example -- one of the daughters of the Captain of the local company of militia had an illegitimate daughter by one of the Scottish Lieutenants stationed at Castine. The daughter was born five months after the Scots evacuated Castine. > We are sometimes given the impression that after the war, all those who had > been Loyalists lost everything they had and had to leave the country. This > is believed to have been true for only one loyalist in five. Locally, in > some cases, it could well have been five out of five, but overall, the > fraction was much smaller. At least the crown provided compensation for loyal citizens forced into begoming refugees. There were many rebels who had equally severe losses and never received any compensation. > We often hear John Adams being quoted as an authority for saying that the > population was divided evenly into thirds (for/against/neutral). If you > dig deep enough into his writings, you can find him giving other > breakdowns, dependent upon the point he was making. <clip> Sentiments changed too frequently to develop any specific stereotype. [see above discussion] Bob Brooks
RC Brooks wrote: > John's 'southern narrative' is similar to the Maine experience. > > Until Kenneth Roberts wrote his novel "Oliver Wiswell" which presented the > American Loyalist's viewpoint, one never mentioned a relative who was a > Loyalist. Even then, there was much controversy because Robert's ventured > into territory theretofore considered tabboo. In fact, it was not uncommon > to find families with members allied to both sides. This is a wonderful book and a must read for those interested in the Battle of Brooklyn, August 27, 1776. He takes you right up the pathways as though you were riding on Clinton's and Howe's saddles. I am fortunate to own a first edition of this book, 1940, not to be confused with the Limited Edition of 1000 copies where a complete Bibliography of source material consulted during the writing. However, this copy does list the books consulted for the Loyalist side; if of interest I would post. The front matter of the book contains the following quote: In 1821 Chief Justice John Jay said to his nephew William Heathcote DeLancey: "let me tell you, William: the *true* history of the American Revolution can *never* be written". Jay delined to give his reasons, saying, "You must be content to know that the fact is as I have said, and that a great many people in those days were not at all what they seemed, nor what they are generally believed to have been." --Edward Floyd DeLancey's introduction to *Jone's History of New york, lii.* Jan