Regarding loyalists and Vermont, and some rough handling of loyalists, Marjie wondered > Would this be a good reason to (a) move to Vermont - out of the way? and (b) > keep changing sides until the outcome was known? All I know about, and not much there, is Windsor County, Vermont. I was reading an old history this morning, or a few pages anyway. According to the author, the place was a hotbed of rebellion when the Revolution broke out. I suppose they would have lynched any loyalists around. History books in general seem to indicate that, except for Bennington, Vermont was "out of the way." In other words, quiet. But the muster rolls have another thing to say about that altogether. The muster rolls seem to say that Vermont was fairly busy with rebelling. From this, I tend to conclude that most if not all mainstream historians are New Yorkers who are still sore that they lost Vermont. I'm beginning to think that the only way I'm going to find out what it was that my ancestors served in is to go through the old county and town histories, one at a time, the hard way. Anyway, I tend to doubt that loyalists would have fared better in Vermont than elsewhere in the colonies. I've read that politics up there at the time, even in general, Revolution aside, were "radical." My own people seem to have flip-flopped about being revolutionaries or loyalists only long after the war was over and it when was in their interests to do so, come time to investing in land up in Canada. 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). They did dabble with the idea of a separate truce with the British as a way of pressuring the Continental Congress to get New York off their backs. But such politics can't be mistaken for either neutrality or loyalism to Britain. Vermonters were simply "loyal" to Vermont Another problem is that, well, my impression is sort of that there were really two Vermonts, the eastern half and the western half. My folks were in the east. I think Ethan Allan et al were in the west. And the west sort of ran Vermont's show. If there were any loyalist havens, local divisions like this might have had to do with it. I suppose that's all really vague, but Vermont seems to have been quite vague at the time. 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/.

At 07:51 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, you 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). They did dabble with the idea of a >separate truce with the British as a way of pressuring >the Continental Congress to get New York off their >backs. But such politics can't be mistaken for either >neutrality or loyalism to Britain. Vermonters were >simply "loyal" to Vermont New Hampshire had no battle or skirmish sites during 1776-1783 (or I haven't found any), but there were more New Hampshiremen, I understand, at Bunker Hill than those from anywhere else. There are few individuals in the war making a greater contribution to the eventual independence of the colonies than that of New Hampshireman John Stark with the "right play at the right time" with his victory at Bennington (now over the line a few miles in NY), which greatly increased the possibility of a patriot/rebel victory at Saratoga. I have concluded that, for most, a "turning point" is either 1) a battle in which your ancestor fought or 2) the battle occurring nearest one's home <g>. In my viewpoint, Saratoga was *the* turning point in the war and the big contributors there were Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan and John Stark (I wouldn't argue over the order of the last two). John Robertson