Let see, if I followed you correctly on another point. The rebels were motivated primarily by greed. Therefore the loyalists would have been characterized by ... (absence of greed?). Ahem. Not at all and untidy logic there! I believe the Loyalists just figured they would prosper if they cooperated within the existing system. They could have been mistaken! I'm simply taking the position that economic factors were more forceful during the pre and immediate war period than we commonly give them credit for, and that most-not all but most-of the nationalistic sentiment came later. Just a pet theory. I'm not coming from the greed is evil point of view-in fact, greed is an unavoidable human motivator, and I'm highly entrepreneurial. Thanks for the rest of the report, too. I agree with what you said, I just have trouble with the word "incite" as opposed to say, expect or encourage. "Incite" has a different type of energy and intent from where I sit, but you know how tolerant I am:):) Keep up the good work, Holley

At 03:54 PM 6/6/2002 -0400, you wrote: >I just have trouble with the word "incite" as opposed to say, expect or >encourage. "Incite" has a different type of energy and intent from where >I sit Let me see if I can say it differently. There was not a civil war in the South during the Revolution, until by direction from their superiors in London, it became the policy of the British military to start one, which they did. The war was very unpopular in Britain and had become quite expensive, both in money and manpower. It was very attractive to the British to consider a plan in which they could win the war by having loyalist colonists fight rebel colonists. It was far more than just something to which the British merely gave mental assent. It was a deliberate strategy for waging war and their commanders in America complied with their orders. London continued to pursue this failed policy long after the field commanders saw that it was fruitless.