The paradox of the American Revolution is well displayed by Roberts in his writings. Sometimes incompetents and morons and political hacks do find their ways into places
above their skill level. Rouges also find opportunity in political chaos.
Loyalists took many forms and some of them were wealthy land owners. However, Roberts in several places describes Scots as the key figures. Now there were many who were lured to Canada with promises of land grants for their services. However, more curious are the back woodsmen who had little to gain from the rule of another inbred idiotic useless English monarch.
Perhaps there is a large degree of truth to Macs claim that as a Mountain Man at the time of the Revolution one just highly likely to be a Scot in the first place. Some Scots did fight on the side of the Patriots as well. It should be noted that German, Dutch settlers did fight for the Patriots.
I have finnished the oft criticized third book of six in Oliver Wiswell. The criticism of this book is out of proportion. It is a transitional chapter and very important for the development of charachters in earlier chapters. Book two is masterful and Book four looks promising.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Please learn to spell "rogue". The constant misspelling discredits your claims to being a "scholar".
Only in your eyes Poultry. Plenty of actual "scholars" rely on spell check. Then again as a Commie rational thought and logic are beyond your limited abilities.
Hey Beak, sorry for the late response, but I've been busy with moving and only today did I get an Internet connection hooked up.
Beak said...However, Roberts in several places describes Scots as the key figures. Now there were many who were lured to Canada with promises of land grants for their services.
I don't follow what you mean by "lured" to Canada. There were men that had served with regiments like Montgomerie's Highlanders and Fraser's Highlanders during the French and Indian War who were offered land for their service. This was a British effort to have a sound basis for a militia should there be futher problems with America.
But those two regiments were raised specifically for service in the Americas. The men that took the land grants and settled in Canada became the officers and NCOs of The Royal Highland Emigrant Regiment which was called up to serve during the Revolutionary War.
The only other land grants I can think of went to the men who fought for the Brits and lost everything when the Revolutionary War ended. And I'm thinking here of the Americans that fought for the Brits and had no place to go at the end of the war. George offered them land for their service, so they had little choice but to accept it and attempt to start their lives over.
Beak said...However, more curious are the back woodsmen who had little to gain from the rule of another inbred idiotic useless English monarch.
Yes, indeed, and even moreso when one thinks that both Montgomerie's and Fraser's Highlanders were raised from Jacobite Clans that had fought against George II in support of a Stewart monarch. And yet they ended up giving their allegiance to a monarch that was foreign to them - the Georges were German monarchs, Beak, they weren't English.
One other comment, the men that fought for the Brits were every bit the patriot that the men were who fought on the other side.
Mac
There was an effort by the crown to Lure Scots with promises of land in Newfoundland for military service. This is discussed casually in Desjardins Through a Howling Wilderness about Arnold's March to Quebec.
Some of the NY loyalists were Scots.However, in several places characters in the book describe superviolent Scot rebels as well.
In the Carolinas highlands the loyalist were Scots.
I wouldn't describe many of the loyalists as Patriots. Brant was a lackey who was very well compensated for his efforts. Many were super rich looking to keep their property. The author Kenneth Roberts talks of objecting to opportunism shown on both sides as well as English arrogance.
Part of the really amazing blunders by the English is not knowing the landscape in what is today Adirondack Park. This is amazing considering that the area
was known from Battles in the French and Indian war. There really was the notion that one can calmly sail to Albany. The roads were poor and is still even today
quite dense with Blackfly, impassable swamps and superdense Forrest with ten foot visibility and no trails. Taking an army with a very large group of non followers through that area was folly.
Sorry about the late reply, things are busy at the moment.
Beak, you said, "There was an effort by the crown to Lure Scots with promises of land in Newfoundland for military service. This is discussed casually in Desjardins Through a Howling Wilderness about Arnold's March to Quebec."
Can you supply a bit more info on what you've said here. What crown tried to lure Scots to Newfoundland and what time period are we talking about?
Some of the NY loyalists were Scots.However, in several places characters in the book describe superviolent Scot rebels as well.
In the Carolinas highlands the loyalist were Scots.
Loyalist means supporter of the monarchy and patriot and rebel both refer to the American independence forces?
I wouldn't describe many of the loyalists as Patriots.
Why not?
Brant was a lackey who was very well compensated for his efforts. Many were super rich looking to keep their property. The author Kenneth Roberts talks of objecting to opportunism shown on both sides as well as English arrogance.
I'd say Brant lived in different times and he did what he could to protect his people. In Canada, Brant is a well-known and appreciated part of our history.
Part of the really amazing blunders by the English is not knowing the landscape in what is today Adirondack Park.
Fabulous history, Beak, have you ever heard of an artist called Robert Griffing? He paints historical pictures from the time of the French and Indian War.
A couple of examples:
- Wardance
- Warriors
Post a Comment