Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
I know this because my grandmother told me a few years before she passed that her father, a mason and devoted patriot, once confided a scandalous family secret: there are loyalists in our family tree.
Sadly, grandma's research never got her to the root of this claim despite much research, but thanks to online resources and some helpful Canadians, I discovered the truth.
Grandma's grandfather had emigrated from New Brunswick, Canada, during the Civil War, in which he served the Union.
It turns out his great-grandfather was a captain in the Queen's Guard during the American revolution, born in Connecticut. He and his wife and children had fled after the war with other loyalists to New Brunswick, Canada. They suffered many deprivations, although the loyalist commission board compensated them about half their worldly goods they lost in America.
This captain had married a woman whose brother fought for the Americans at Bunker Hill.
While researching my grandmother's grandfather from Canada, I discovered a telling white lie: he would tell the local busybody newspaper that he was visiting his sister in New York. Thing is, he had no sister in New York. Instead, I discovered the Canadian newspapers not long after were reporting he had arrived from America to visit his sister in New Brunswick.
I was blown away by all this rich history, but when I shared my discoveries with all the remaining family on that side, nobody expressed excitement. In fact, the one person who used to call me up to discuss family history, stopped calling me.
We joke about the Red Sox and the Yankees but deep down there is this smidgen of it that goes all the way back.
Also from the article, amazing how William Franklin has been almost erased by history even though Benjamin Franklin is endlessly discussed in elementary history in the US. A fascinating addition to the story. I'm sure historians are familiar with this, but it's likely something every day Americans should all know about. I know it was not mentioned in my education through high school, including AP history. There was scant discussion of loyalists, the Tories were definitely mentioned but it was not covered in the same way the community & family divisions of the Civil War were.
Not only was William a loyalist, he was the last colonial governor of New Jersey and was one of the chief leaders of the loyalists. His early years and heritage are just crazy stuff, even for our times.
There is a good reason you've not heard about ol William before, because his story and relationships are totally nuts. My lord, the conflicts of interest are at actual war.
Imagine if Putin's bastard son was one of Zelensky's most important generals.
Still the same today.
But Reddit in particular is nasty about this. I think HN does a bit of a better job but the issue here is that the majority of users are generally well off. This skews the discussions.
I’m hoping all the RIFs, reductions / eradication of IMLS, etc. don’t reduce the gains in & sharing of knowledge from these institutions, but if I am being honest it kind of feels like it’s purposeful destruction.
So I’ll enjoy it while we have it.
In the UK there’s regular Tories (Conservative Party), red Tories (Labour Party under Blair or Starmer), tartan Tories (SNP), etc.
In the US it seems like you only have red and blue Tories.
They’re much closer to each other than UK’s Tories and Labour, for sure.
When it comes to taxes, fiscal priorities, rights for individuals, foreign policy, crime and punishment, and of course social issues they are very different and in most cases take the opposite approach.
For example, Republicans want lower taxes for the wealthy while Democrats want lower taxes for the lower and middle classes. Republicans want to restrict individuals rights - especially for non-christian white males, Democrats don't. Republicans favor heavy handed punishment including capital punishment, Democrats favor rehabilitation and a ban on capital punishment. Republicans want to blow up the national debt through tax breaks and pork, Democrats want to control the debt through responsible spending and investments. Republicans want to stop investment in education and science while Democrats want to increase investment in these areas. These are all very real and not just aesthetics.
This is a curious comment. HackerNews has always told me it was in fact the opposite - it's easy enough to source quotes from over the years. Could this forum have been wrong all this time?
Freedom2 says>"Could this forum have been wrong all this time?"<
Surely you jest, Sir! My hat is off to you!8-))
The tell is that when Republicans push through their policies, Democratic opposition is weak and ineffectual. Instead of ferocious opposition the Dems send one of their famous sternly worded letters.
Since at least 2000 the party establishment has absolutely refused to do any of the things it could do to change this - including packing the Supreme Court, supporting and promoting grass roots activism between elections, using the filibuster, and so on.
Biden couldn't even get any of Trump's prosecutions over the line - including televised evidence of insurrection, and treasonous mishandling of official state secrets (!)
However it's spun, there is a very obvious reluctance to challenge the extremes of Republicanism.
The party is far more likely to censure one of its non-centrists than its centrists, while the opposite is true of the Republicans.
Of course, they failed, and democrats won 2 elections in a row running a candidate labeled a radical socialist. Obama became the only 21st century president to win the poplar vote twice, and the DNC has been trying to drag the party back in the 20th century ever since, blaming their own voters when it doesn't work.
It boggles my mind that they refused to even engage with the "undecided movement", which created a grass-roots get out to vote movement out of thin air. In swing states no less.
The starkest contrast between the two parties is womens rights and to a lesser extent LGBTQ rights. Although I'm not even sure how true this is anymore with so many politicians backing Cuomo, who resigned because an investigation found overwhelming evidence he sexually harrassed and assaulted female employees. And I'm pretty sure people like Chuck Schumer and other centrists view the LGBTQ community as a liability.
Amazing! And who won the pine, elm, and oak vote? [it's "popular" not "poplar"; A poplar is a effing tree!)
Now you're calling for the trees to vote! Have you no shame, sir? I assure those reading not to panic: no unregistered trees shall be allowed to vote, even in California, as long as Donald Trump is President! Simultaneously we extend our grief to all of those in CA whose registered and unregistered trees were slaughtered by the recent fires in CA.
"I've seen thing you people wouldn't believe... forests on fire off the hills of Redmond.... I watched fire retardants glitter in the dark streaming in the skies over San Bernadino. All those votes will be lost in time, like tears in the rain...Time to go."
- parting words of homeless anarchist who started the blaze.
Why do you think he / “other centrists” hold that view?
This is likely to depend heavily on what positions you care strongly about.
Your Corporate media is the problem.
Also, a lot of what has happened goes back to the Church Committee and the fact that no meaningful reforms were made after that.
And here we are.
Fairness doctrine only applied to limited spectrums (Radio) not to cable.
The LA riots involve property destruction and interference with criminal removal.
Those who are protesting peacefully and are here legally are free to continue. Some areas may be off limits while crimes are stopped.
Not the same at all.
In my opinion, doing so to some extent is important to preserve the rights of other parts of society, but that's not a universally held opinion by any means.
Specifically, 46 people signed the declaration of independence. How many of those are remembered today? Do I expect that people on the "other side" had it worse? Yeah, but this framing implies a spoils system.
This always makes it odd to read about narratives that go about people's connection to family land. It is almost anti American in how we were founded and grew. I know we have a few estates that are named and known. Is that a larger number than I realize?