I am just getting to the Vermont loyalist part of my genealogy so this comment is more of a footnote than substance. However I would be interested in learning more about similar profiles. I have not found my family on muster lists My ancestor, Jesse Irish, a Quaker with seven sons came to Danby when it was opening. His son, my direct ancestor, Peter Irish was the tax collector for Danby. Apparently Jesse and his sons went to Burgoyne for protection. I have no evidence they ever fought, but their land might have been used for access. In any case one son John was killed on his front porch by locals. They had property and animals seized by the state. It is possible this was a case of the double taxation for Quakers, but the Irish family had taken sides. Peter and his family moved to Haldimand Ontario after the war and his son, Daniel, my ancestor, fought with Canada in the War of 1812. He still listed himself as Friend. Lynn Phifer

Subject: The Vermont Controversy Source: History of Charlestown, NH by Rev. Henry H. Saunderson Chapter VIII, p.120 The State of Vermont, originally the New-Hampshire grants, adopted its Constitution and set up an independent government in 1778. Previous to 1749 no township had been chartered in the territory which it embraced. I transcribed the text from the History of Charlestown, NH ... It is a file of abt 70 kbs and is freely shared on request. (sent as a WordPad text attachment)

In 1740, Fort No. 4 was built in north western New Hampshire as a frontier fort to guard against the French and Indians coming down from Canada to MA on what became known as the war path route. It was on the Connecticut River. Many settlers crossed over the river and made settlements before VT became a state. (The Vermont Controversy) have a file on that from the History of Charlestown, NH Then there was the long and ugly fight with NY by the settlers of early VT to retain the lands they paid for and developed. This was the 3rd and 4th generation from the original settlers of MA. I know because the grandsons of my ancestor founded that first fort in north western NH My own grandfather was several generations descended from those first Vermonters, those first NH fort folks and of course the immigrant Matthis Farnsworth of 1600s Lynn & Groton, Mass. They were subsistence farmers but the land supported their large farms and large families. My grandfather was also a farmer till he died. A dairy farmer. A commercial dairy farmer which supported 7 children and at peak 30 farmhands.

I went to college in Vermont, and it's beautiful. But I imagine a more important consideration to New Englanders migrating up to Vermont in the 18th century was the prospect of land. In the older colonies (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and maybe Rhode Island), land disappeared as families begat families and towns correspondingly begat towns. Also, some farmland was wearing out. People were not free to go West, because the King's Proclamation of 1763 forbade settlement beyond the Appalachians. So - why not try, say, the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania? Why not try - Vermont? (Beautiful as it was, it never looked very fertile to me, and our meals confirmed that impression.) Anne

Greetings Lester - thanks for that information: I shall add it to my store of knowledge. Is there anyone (including Lester!) who could tell me what the attraction of Vermont WAS, exactly? Is it because it was out of the way of the Brits, or good land, or what? The most I've seen of the USA is a bit of Florida (no, not Disneyworld!!), and the fort that can be seen from the Canadian side of Niagara Falls - so US geography is a bit of a closed book to me. Cheers Marjie.

Dear friends, I have the book, "THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS" THE COMPLETE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THOMAS JEFFERSON AND ABIGAIL AND JOHN ADAMS, Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Virginia by The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, Edited by Lester J. Cappon, Originally published 1959. This book is over 600 pages, single spaced, front and back. There is a letter written by Jefferson to Adams over a period of days, including August 10-11th in the year 1815, which is where I believe someone misunderstood the dating and because the year number appears thus: (-15) they picked up that date. As to the letter, there is discussion, and has been between Jefferson and Adams at people coming out of the woodwork, (my phrase) writing about what had been said behind closed doors. John Adams said something to the effect, "I'd like to know how that could be written when not one soul was writing as we were talking"....It goes on and on between the two. If our listowner would like, I shall transcribe the letter written from Monticello on August 10-11th, 1815 from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams? Regards, Margaret

Found this on the way to looking for something else. Anne http://members.aol.com/mhecht7725/FRONTENAC/cayugas.html

I did get in a little time at the library today between disasters on the home front, and I got a few preliminary results regarding my (and a few others on this list) Patriot-Revolutionary-Loyalists. But first, a quick note that's actually on-topic for the topic police. I had asked earlier about the festivities of about October 1780 in Vermont that gave rise to several "Alarms." Well, it turns out that the main event in all of that was a British-led Indian raid on Royalton, Vermont, which aforesaid town was burned down. If you remember the French And Indian War, well, looks like maybe what the Vermonters had on their hands was a sort of Redcoat And Indian War. Off-list, another list member mentioned she had an ancestor who had served at Castleton, Vermont. I learned that the Vermonters held a fort at Castleton to guard against the Redcoats And Indians. In western Vermont, the area north of Castleton had been evacuated. Two other forts held by the Vermonters were at Rutland and Pittsford. The above doesn't necessarily apply to eastern Vermont. Now, about my Rebel Loyalists (Rev. War vets who had fought on OUR side AGAINST the Redcoats And Indians), who took off for Quebec in about 1803 and somehow got Loyalist labels: I had guessed there had been some sort of opportunity for new cheap land up there, and they went for it. Maybe there was even advertising in Vermont for settlers up yonder. Well, my preliminary library swoop shows that there was just such a thing. My day was too chaotic to get good, firm stuff, but in a nutshell, the British had wanted to fill up a buffer zone between the U.S. and Canada with people loyal to Britain. This would quarantine the U.S. Especially in Ontario, especially about 1790-1800, the authorities recruited loyalist and loyalist-oriented people from the U.S. and other places to settle this Canadian buffer zone. They even went so far as to advertise in places like Vermont. (Probably some sort of word-of-mouth.) Canadian private speculators got in on it, which made the history of the episode really messy. What the Canadian officials got from the U.S. were some Loyalists but also lots of "neo-Loyalists" and scads of "quasi-Loyalists." All were required to sign loyalty oaths to Britain -- thus, names hit the record books -- though the loyalty oaths fizzled out after awhile. I think "neo-Loyalists" were people who were British-leaning and didn't take all that much enticing to change labels. And "quasi-Loyalists" were probably just Yankees using their Ingenuity -- doing whatever it took to cash in on a good deal, and if they needed to lie about their politics, well, so be it. This sort of thing spilled over into Quebec, and it seems to have gone on more or less until the War of 1812. Things seem fuzzy after about 1800. I think my guys first went to extreme eastern Ontario, but had difficulties there, so they tried again at very western Quebec, in the Argenteuil (sp?) area, Quebec, I think at Lachute. So, that is sort of the drift of my findings so far, though today was utter chaos, so my above sketch is no doubt wobbly. I'd appreciate any corrections or additions. Lester Powers lesterps@juno.com in southern California, where the libraries are nearly free of things eastern ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Marjorie Bloy <mbloy@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > Lester (and others) - help!! I thought Vermont was a > "new settlement" - and illegal at that - in the 1760s, > and that it came on the wrong side of the Proclamation > Line in 1763. Was it part of New York? Similarly, I > didn't think that Maine existed, but was another bit > of Massachusetts in the 1760s. New Hampshire's > governor was Wentworth, wasn't he? - related to "my > Marquis". Vermont was indeed illegal. Maine was part of Massachusetts. And the New Hampshire guv was Benning Wentworth. I dropped by the library to review the dispute between New York and Vermont. It took only a few seconds for me to be firmly reminded why it was that I had earlier postponed further study of that subject. Gosh, what a mess! I believe I'm going to postpone that for a few months more. Lester ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

David asked for a cite on John Adams' letter that contained the lines; >"What do we mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the >Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The >Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from >1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood >was drawn at Lexington." In "Passionate Sage", by Joseph Ellis it is cited as 'Adams to Thomas Jefferson, August 14, 1815, Adams-Jefferson Letters, 11, 455'. Ellis also mentioned the similar wording in the Hezekiah Niles letter that Margaret points out. My own thoughts on the very similar wording is that Adams was looking over his notes when Niles approached him with some questions or a request for his collection. [Niles' collection was published as "Principles and Acts of the Revolution", and is a hodge-podge of miscellany of some interest.] Niles may have even asked specifically about the Adams-Jefferson letters, as many of them were published in newspapers of the day. I'm still wondering on the Keith quote - but I'm going to try alt.quotations. There are a couple folks there that might have the answer at their fingertips. Jim

http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=144&parent=54 Perhaps this is the letter from Adams referred to by Mr. Elbrecht. Regards, M. Driskill

JIM ELBRECHT'S MESSAGE CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING: Many of the 'inevitability' historians use the letter from Adams to Jefferson in 1815 as their proof on inevitability; "What do we mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington." CAN ANYONE FURNISH A CITATION FOR THIS QUOTE? I HAVE HEARD IT FOR YEARS. ALSO IN JIM'S MESSAGE: "Sir William Keith, a capable royal governor of Pennsylvania, had a Machiavellian idea that the mother country should encourage jealousies between colonies. "For while they continue so, " he asserted, "it is mortally impossible that any dangerous union can be formed between them." [unfortunately this is one of his few unattributed quotes-- anybody know the source? I'm guessing it could be 1750's, but Keith was Gov 1716-1727.] I TOO WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THE SOURCE FOR THIS. I AM STUDYING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA IN THE 1770S AND IN FACT THE TWO COLONIES NEARLY WENT TO INTERCOLONIAL WAR (IF SUCH A THING WERE POSSIBLE) OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PITTSBURGH AREA FINALLY, SOME MESSAGES WERE PASSED ABOUT VERMONT AND NEW YORK. JOHN MURRAY, EARL OF DUNMORE WAS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK IN 1772 AND WAS TRANSFERED TO VIRGINIA AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO GRAB LAND IN (NOW) WEST VIRGINIA. CAN ANYONE COMMENT ON DUNMORE'S ACTIVITIES AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK AND WHETHER HE WAS INVOLVED IN LAND GRABBING IN THE WESTERN SECTIONS WHILE GOVERNOR THERE? Armstrong Elkins, WV

Greetings Aha! My mail box just filled up again!! Definitely the sound of whirring whetstones :))) Donald said, <<I wonder how much of the British debt was attributable to "defending" America and how much to the rampant corruption in successive British governments.>> I don't recall that there was "rampant corruption" in British government in the 18th century - could you be more specific, please? The way Britain was governed was in accordance with the values and practices of the day. People (well, the few to whom it applied) owned their votes just as we own cars, houses and such. Therefore, it was normal for them to sell their votes to the highest bidder - everyone did it. Men were appointed to Cabinet office because of their political affiliation - nothing new there, either. The King had - and used - the absolute right under the Constitution to appoint the Prime Minister; arguably, he didn't always choose the most appropriate person so he replaced the PM at fairly regular intervals in an attempt to find someone with whom he could work. The British didn't like the French very much in the 18th century (and some would say that nothing much has changed since then :)) ) so they defended themselves against French encroachment during the Seven Years' War in America, Europe and India. The French attempt to take over British possessions wasn't to be tolerated, and that caused the debt to increase phenomenally. Most of the National Debt had been accrued over the course of the 18th century in an attempt to curtail French expansion into British-owned lands or incursions into "British interests". Looked at objectively, isn't that what any nation would do? Anne - perhaps a gormless question - but how do Americans define "self-governing"? From the viewpoint of the British government, all of them had self-government in that they had their own assemblies and passed their own laws for the day-to-day administration. The Governors were Crown appointees, but (I think I'm right here) many of them were born in the colonies. I'm thinking here of (for example) Thomas Hutchinson in Massachusetts and Wentworth in New Hampshire. They were caught between a rock and a hard place, of course - and suffered from both sides in the conflict. As Jim says, the colonial assemblies passed their own laws, which could be over-ridden by Westminster. Please don't forget that the British government had enough domestic problems to deal with at this time and probably didn't worry too much about what colonial assemblies were up to, except where their activities impinged directly on "British" interests. The same could be said about the parliament in Dublin - that passed its own laws but they had to be approved of by Westminster first. I'm going to have to get up into my loft, drag out my notes on the Causes of the American Revolution and do some serious studying again, I think... It's 20 years since I sat the exam on this period!! Marjie.

Something came up a night or two ago about supplying the Continental Army, and I wanted to post a referral to the journal, or diary, of Joseph Joslin, of Connecticut, who was a teamster carrying provisions to the army at Fishkill or one of the other Hudson River posts. I couldn't remember his name. (Don't have a single Rev book or note here.) But I took many notes from this journal at the Detroit Public Library's Burton Room. For those who might be interested, the book exists, and is informative. Anne

Recollections of the Boston Tea Party by George R. T. Hewes (a participant) http://www.buchanan.org/h-023.html Biography of George R. T. Hewes, poor shoemaker, hero in the New Republic <A HREF="http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/hewes.html">George R. T. Hewes and the Meaning of the Revolution - The Early America Review</A> http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/hewes.html

I suppose it depends on how you define self government, in Pennsylvania the colony was allowed to establish its own laws, these laws were enforced when passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature but they could be overriden by the British government. Jim JMJJF@aol.com wrote: > > --part1_142.2803c29.28eb667d_boundary > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > In a message dated 10/2/2001 2:48:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JMJJF writes: > > << Subj: Re: [A-REV] Hornets' nest? > Date: 10/2/2001 2:48:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: JMJJF > To: mbloy@dial.pipex.com > > In a message dated 10/1/2001 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mbloy@dial.pipex.com writes: > > << most colonies had self-government >> > Not true, at least by the time of the Revolution. I keep reading that the > only 2 self-governing colonies were Connecticut and Rhode Island. Anne >> > > --part1_142.2803c29.28eb667d_boundary > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Disposition: inline > > Return-path: <JMJJF@aol.com> > From: JMJJF@aol.com > Full-name: JMJJF > Message-ID: <90.1ac023ab.28eb660e@aol.com> > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:48:46 EDT > Subject: Re: [A-REV] Hornets' nest? > To: mbloy@dial.pipex.com > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 > > In a message dated 10/1/2001 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mbloy@dial.pipex.com writes: > > << most colonies had self-government >> > Not true, at least by the time of the Revolution. I keep reading that the > only 2 self-governing colonies were Connecticut and Rhode Island. Anne > > --part1_142.2803c29.28eb667d_boundary-- > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

--part1_142.2803c29.28eb667d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/2001 2:48:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JMJJF writes: << Subj: Re: [A-REV] Hornets' nest? Date: 10/2/2001 2:48:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: JMJJF To: mbloy@dial.pipex.com In a message dated 10/1/2001 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mbloy@dial.pipex.com writes: << most colonies had self-government >> Not true, at least by the time of the Revolution. I keep reading that the only 2 self-governing colonies were Connecticut and Rhode Island. Anne >> --part1_142.2803c29.28eb667d_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: <JMJJF@aol.com> From: JMJJF@aol.com Full-name: JMJJF Message-ID: <90.1ac023ab.28eb660e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:48:46 EDT Subject: Re: [A-REV] Hornets' nest? To: mbloy@dial.pipex.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 In a message dated 10/1/2001 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mbloy@dial.pipex.com writes: << most colonies had self-government >> Not true, at least by the time of the Revolution. I keep reading that the only 2 self-governing colonies were Connecticut and Rhode Island. Anne --part1_142.2803c29.28eb667d_boundary--

Revolutionary War Record William Neely with a party of men led by Captain James Robertson, in the early spring of 1779 crossed the Cumberland Mountains and planted a field of corn where the city of Nashville Tennessee now stands. Soon after in July or August of 1780, William Neely was killed by Indians at Neely's Bend. In 1784, the State of North Carolina granted Captain Robertson 640 acres of land for his services in the Revolutionary War against the Indian Allies of the Government of Great Britain. The heirs of William Neely received 640 acres of land without price. (Tennessee During the Revolutionary War by Williams--page 104). http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/S_Peterson/myfamily.htm

Greetings Looks like another multiple answer - my mail box just filled up... Thank you one and all for your responses: do I hear whetstones in the background, I wonder?!! I agree, Ann, that <<the key (to colonial revolt) is to be found ... shortly after .. 1763 (when) Britain began to tighten control of the 13 colonies.>> I suspect we will disagree about why the Brits wanted to tighten up control, though. One of the main reasons was that colonial smuggling had enabled the French to keep up the Seven Years' War for longer than she would have done without colonial cash. Britain had had "absolute control of the seas" for a long time - we kept sinking French ships whenever they were daft enough to go into open seas ... Likewise, most colonies had self-government, under the Crown (through the Governor, appointed by Britain), so the Crown had every right to pass legislation. The one piece of British legislation that wasn't criticised until 1776 was the Declaratory Act of 1766. The problem was cash - the colonists didn't want to pay up for British troops, for the Navigation Laws, for anything really. However, how could Britain treat the American colonies differently from other colonies (Canada, India, the West Indies) without setting a dangerous precedent herself? Much of the British national debt of £140 million had accrued through defending the American colonies against French encroachment - surely Britain had a right to expect the colonists to help pay it off?? The USA certainly expected us to cough up after 1945 when we were flat broke after fighting for 6 years, two of it totally alone, against Nazi Germany!! RSTEW (best I can do!) - I did mention the convicts, actually ("Others ended up in the colonies because they were sent there by our legal system: transportation. That was hardly a voluntary act!"). Fortunately, by 1776, my great ggg grandfather - yes, really, but I lose count of the "greats" - (Captain Cook) had discovered Australia and we had somewhere else to send them... They were cheaper than slaves, I suppose. A lot of people didn't get rich in the colonies, either - and had to stay. Now do we congratulate or commiserate there? We all know that many thousands of Irish people were "helped" to America during the Famine by landlords in Ireland - but doesn't the Statue of Liberty have an inscription about "sending your homeless, poor" and such?? I must find a copy of "Fatal Shore": I don't have one. "Cyberbay" - thanks for the letter: it's wonderful! May I use it on my web site, please - and if so, do you have the reference?? How true is the story I heard about Mrs Jefferson refusing marital rights to Thomas, until he'd finished writing the Declaration of Independence? I think I recall that the women made gunpowder for the troops. Jim - thanks for the welcome! I'll have a look for the Montross book when I go back to the University library: there should (ha!!) be a copy in there. I just knew that I'd get that wrong about "rebels". I'm sure I read somewhere that Sam Adams (or at least, one of the colonial leaders) said that one third of the colonists wanted independence, a third didn't and the other third didn't really care - so the "rebels" had a real task getting people to support them, which is why they resorted to violence and bullying. If it didn't bring forth support, at least it kept their opponents quiet. Also, didn't we try to get the colonies to work together in 1754 with the Congress of Albany, but failed miserably? Of course the Brits wanted their cake and to eat it - but at least the colonies were "ours"!! Taxes in Britain? Loads of them. Honestly. Land tax stood at 4 shillings in the £, levied on all landowners - for every £1 their property was worth, they paid 4/- tax (that's 20%); everyone working paid into the Poor Rates for the relief of poverty (outdoor relief) - that varied with the price of bread; everyone paid a tithe (a tenth) of their produce/income to the Church of England whether they belonged to it or not, they also paid the same to the landowner as rent for their plots of land and cottages. All wage earners had to serve in the militia and a tax was levied to pay for that - every county had a militia, the number of men being fixed by law (the 1757 Militia Act). People also paid the window tax (on all windows in their houses - you can see tax evasion in practice in old houses where the windows have been bricked up!). The list of monopolies was endless so people paid indirect taxes on goods and through the nose. The tax on tea was 119% ad valorem, for example. Inheritance tax was levied here as well. Taxes had to be paid to the mill-owner to mill the flour, to the brewer to brew the beer, to the baker for his bread... However, we didn't pay income tax until the French Wars. I guess there wasn't a lot to choose between the two countries (unlike today, where we still pay through the nose!). Britain didn't have free trade until 1846 when the Corn Laws were repealed. We bought colonial tobacco - a ready market; ditto cotton, coffee, sugar. All imports to Britain were heavily taxed whether they came from the colonies or not - most of the government's annual revenue (of £30 million) came from these taxes. That's why people here starved to death when the American colonies imposed their non-importation agreements on British goods. They couldn't sell their produce to America and therefore couldn't afford to buy food, which was taxed to the hilt. Annie - why wouldn't thirteen separate colonies (rather than the USA, which didn't yet exist), not "stand for" dominion status? Canada and Australia have been dominions for about 100 years and it's not caused them problems until recently. The colonies would have had virtual self-government; only their foreign policy would have been controlled by Britain; the Governor-General would have been a figurehead, mainly. Both Canada and Australia have made the transition from colony to Dominion to independence fairly smoothly. If (now there's a word for an historian to conjure with!!) people had listened to Edmund Burke in 1775, would the war have happened? Rockingham had sorted out the major problem of 1765, Burke was his mouthpiece in the Commons. Wouldn't it have worked a second time?? Lester (and others) - help!! I thought Vermont was a "new settlement" - and illegal at that - in the 1760s, and that it came on the wrong side of the Proclamation Line in 1763. Was it part of New York? Similarly, I didn't think that Maine existed, but was another bit of Massachusetts in the 1760s. New Hampshire's governor was Wentworth, wasn't he? - related to "my Marquis". It's interesting that American contributors (colonial brethren) to this discussion blame George III directly for the Anglo-colonial problems. Now that didn't happen until the Declaration of Independence. Until then, most colonists used the traditional tactic of blaming "evil counsellors". Please tell me why modern Americans blame the poor king. All he did was support his various governments - and God knows, there were enough of them to make problems for the country (Britain, that is!). Ironically, after independence, American trade with Britain - now voluntary - quadrupled. That's what I call "awkward". Patti - "Braveheart" was a massacre of history and a travesty of truth. It bears little likeness to what really happened (a bit like the film where Americans find the Enigma machine, really). Anyway, Wallace was executed in 1305, and you can't equate what happened in the Middle Ages to 18th century events. The people in England who were most persecuted for their money were Jews - mainly because they had money and the monarchs didn't, but that again is the Middle Ages when life was cheap and people were dispensable. I'm not defending what happened; I will defend the principle that one can't impose modern values on the past. Torture chambers are a good pull for tourists, of course... although I'd agree that ten years' hard labour maybe is a bit harsh for stealing a rabbit. I think the Church of England was probably not best served by its attempt to impose Bishops on the colonies, since many colonists had left England to escape from religious persecution. I don't think that God can be blamed for what people do in His name, though. People are flawed, by nature. How much money did Patrick Henry make out of the "Parson's Cause" suit? I thought Virginia was an Anglican colony. The Quakers in Pennsylvania and the Congregationalists (?) in Massachusetts weren't persecuted for their beliefs and non-Anglicanism: why the difference in Virginia? I didn't realise you didn't have prayers in school. I thought they followed the Oath of Allegiance (is it?) Maybe one posting a week is enough from me: I'll have to start a word count and limit myself to a few comments... Cheers Marjie.

This is getting way off the subject line of loyalists versus rebels, but I've had a very hard day and want to correct something before I fall into bed. Otherwise, it's a guarantee I'll forget. I wrote: > During the Revolution, Vermont saw its war as >being on two fronts, with the British as one, and New >York as the other (New Hampshire seeming to be a half- >hearted player). John Robertson replied that New Hampshiremen were heroes at the Battle of Bunker Hill, etc. What I meant to say was that New Hampshire was a half-hearted player in the struggle to gobble up Vermont. I did not mean to say anything at all about New Hampshire's role in the Revolution. I meant to say only that New Hampshire retreated from its bid to absorb Vermont without too much fuss, compared to New York's obstinacy. However, John's reply touches on a mysterious point. Dr. Stephen Powers, according to several books, also served at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Dr. Stephen Powers resided at Woodstock, Windsor Co., Vermont at the time. It has always seemed suspect to me that Dr. Stephen really, actually served at Bunker Hill. How in goodness did he get there? Why? How did he know to go down thataway? Now, John tells me that the New Hampshiremen were there too! Guess whose wounds Dr. Stephen was binding up!!! Privately (I think - I'm on digest mode so things are delayed), Jerry Quick, also a listmember, wrote to me (Putney is in Vermont): > I'm especially interested in Putney. It seems several > young men from Putney enrolled in various Massachusetts > regiments in the weeks following Lexington and Concord. and > Was the Massachusetts Committee of Safety in > communication with Vermont towns along the Connecticut > River? How were these guys recruited into > Massachusetts Regiments rather than New Hampshire > units? Now I've got my Dr. Stephen Powers rushing off to the Battle of Bunker Hill, and Jerry's guys are rushing out to mop up, or something, after Lexington and Concord. And I guess neither of us know how or why. For Vermont, it just doesn't help that it is all but left out of the revolutionary history books!!! How did these things come to pass? There were neither freeways nor telephones then, much less E-mail or web sites. My Vermonters were not closer than the other side of umpteen mountains from the boondocks. Oh yes, about word choice, which has been one recent topic. I almost always refer to our guys as "rebels" rather than Patriots or revolutionaries, because that takes less typing to type and fewer syllables to say. Also this was a Revolution, and the people of revolutions are by definition rebels. Rebels it is. Time for bed. I have to defer replying to the other kind souls who wrote to me today because I am really, really tired. Been a long awful day. Could be another of the same tomorrow. Lester Powers ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.