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

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 > >