Why were there barely any Loyalists in the American Revolution?

The main contention vis a vis the American Revolution that I've seen some British historians or British Empire sympathizers claim is that essentially the revolutionaries were actually a small portion of the population, mostly random intellectuals and smugglers out of Boston, and they essentially drug the colonies into a revolution none of them wanted and forced them to align with it via terror tactics. Yet, if that were the case, you'd think tens of thousands of Loyalists would have immediately flocked to the British the second the British Army was deployed to the New World. Instead they didn't and the British struggled to find recruits or even sympathizers for intelligence rings throughout the war. Its estimated something near 40% of the male population served in the Continental Army whereas probably not even 7% of the male population served in the British Army or as a provincial/partisan.

So this begs the question, why were there almost no Loyalists in the colonies during the revolution, especially if it was apparently a revolt engineered and only carried out by a small group of malcontents?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    normiecattle dont rock the boat

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seems they rocked the boat in the 1770s, since most of them sided with the revolutionaries.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        side with the people who will obviously win or side with the chud-tier House of Saxe-Cothburg usurper monarchy that cares more about injuns than the Rights of Englishmen?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        70% of the population was completely neutral.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Its estimated something near 40% of the male population served in the Continental Army

      Only 12% of the population revolted against the bongs. It's true that even fewer were loyalists, but is correct. Most people don't care who is taxing them as long as they leave them alone.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Only 12% of the population revolted against the bongs
        And what percentage of the military age free white male population?
        If 12% is total population that seems quite high actually, especially for an 18th century conflict

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm pretty sure if roughly 1 in 8 men was truly revolutionary, that's a big number.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The main contention vis a vis the American Revolution that I've seen some British historians or British Empire sympathizers claim is that essentially the revolutionaries were actually a small portion of the population, mostly random intellectuals and smugglers out of Boston, and they essentially drug the colonies into a revolution none of them wanted and forced them to align with it via terror tactics.
    Those people are wrong
    /thread/

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >moderates on both sides invite king to resolve the dispute
    >king spergs out and writes seethe post that pisses off everyone
    No biggie. King wanted his war an he got it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >When I lie on the internet

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where exactly is the lie in what i said

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          All of it was made up.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            These are not what you described. The American revolutionaries asked the king to override parliament. Quite ironic that their request was asking the king to actually do something tyrannical.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is doing his job tyrannical?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As a constitutional monarch, It's not his job to overrule the will of the elected parliament just because the colonists are unhappy with the laws it passed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But he wasn't just the King of Great Britain, he was also the King of the colonies, which despite growing in population had no representation in parliament.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There were about 500,000 of them and they became a large proportion of the canadian english speaking population after the war, so Canada is basically American clay

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's a distinction between wanting to be part of an abstract British Imperial sphere, with all of the economic benefits that this brings, and actually wanting to be part of the massive bureaucratic machine that makes this abstract imperial sphere possible. Being part of the massive imperial sphere is great, being part of the imperial bureaucracy sucks. The people who fled, that talked about, wanted to stay in Britain's imperial sphere, but didn't want to actually fight for it.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Propaganda and stronger identity as colonists than being British subjects after a sustained period of disinterest in the management of the colonies prior.
    There was more incentive to fight for the Revolution than the Crown for average colonists.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The British did themselves few favors by passing authoritarian legislation and new taxes, leaving them few sympathizers.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was more English fighting for Americans than England.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      By English, are you meaning in a purely ethnic sense e.g counting American-colonists of English descent or do you mean individuals born and raised in England?

      There were certainly plenty of men born in England in the Continental Army, but I'd wager there were many more in the British Army.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The majority of English regiments in the British Army were forced to stay in Britain and Ireland due to the threat of a French/Spanish invasion.
        The majority of the British Army in North America was made up of German mercs and Irish/Scottish/Welsh regiments.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Brits fricked it up by demanding neutrals pick a side. Patriots were happy enough that the neutrals stayed the frick out of it. The British also botched it by refusing to acknowledge loyalist self-rule and instead kept to martial law - isolating potential loyalists who would have been loyal to the crown. The Brits also refused to acknowledge former captured patriots and allow them stay neutral; instead they were forced to swear a public oath to the king AND support the British cause via material means. Failure to do so meant arrest. Many southerners, even loyalists, were appalled by this. Respected local leaders were being demanded to swear public loyalty oaths AND forcibly contribute to the cause? The frick? How could the "Brits are tyrant" propaganda not write themselves?
    >Another failed initiative was the British attempt to convince local leaders to join the loyalist cause. One example is Cornwallis’s meeting with 76-year-old Richard Richardson. Richardson was one of the most respected local leaders in South Carolina in the summer of 1780. Cornwallis offered him “any office or title he might wish” if he agreed to join the British cause. He also threatened to imprison Richardson if he did not accept the offer. Richardson replied, “I have from the best convictions of my mind embarked on a cause which I think righteous and just; I have knowingly staked my life, family, and property all upon the issue. I am prepared to suffer or triumph with it, and would rather die a thousand deaths than betray my country or deceive my friends.” Cornwallis imprisoned Richardson and the man died under confinement in September 1780.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >brits literally can't help but be cartoonishly villain-like even to their own blood

      The meme is true.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >offers you and title or office you want
      >ok deal I am king now lol America is free

      Wasted opportunity. Idiot could have saved thousands of lives.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >hahaha bro he should have just betrayed his countrymen, family and friends all for his own personal benefit

        not everyone is as dastardly and greedy as brits/benedict arnold are, anon.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >1780
        He was never going to be king of America lol

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The vast majority of people throughout history prefer a peaceful status quo to anything else. That's why conscription has always been a thing; it's very difficult to field an army of all volunteers.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Overwhelming majority were sitting around waiting to see who came out on top. It only takes a couple percent of the population saying frick it for a revolution to happen

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Still, statistically people who were involved were more likely to be Patriots than Loyalists, which begs the question why.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          All of the wealthy people were in Canada

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because Americans were right and the British were wrong.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was barely any revolutionaries either. Something stupid like only 10,000 people died in the American revolution. Most people keep their heads down and go along with whoever wins

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Around 30-40k died including deaths from illnesses and imprisonment. Combat deaths it was around 20k.

      The majority of English regiments in the British Army were forced to stay in Britain and Ireland due to the threat of a French/Spanish invasion.
      The majority of the British Army in North America was made up of German mercs and Irish/Scottish/Welsh regiments.

      Yeah, I knew about the Scottish thing, Colonial Whigs DESPISED the Scots and viewed them as essentially the enforcers of British imperialism both in America and in India. Americans also humiliated Scots Highland regiments again at the Battle of New Orleans 32 years after the Revolution.

      >Its estimated something near 40% of the male population served in the Continental Army
      oh frick off

      80,000+ men served at some point in the Continental Army.
      Maybe around 10,000 served in the British Army or provincial units.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  13. 5 months ago
    Radiochan

    because those loyalists got their houses burned down

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What Loyalists there were started fading as the British kept pushing more and more idiotic demands sapping away any goodwill they had left in the colonies. If anything one of the main screw ups the British made during the Revolution was running all over the colonies praying there would be huge Loyalist reinforcements around the corner to help just to end up disappointed.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Its estimated something near 40% of the male population served in the Continental Army
    oh frick off

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >they essentially drug the colonies
    >drug

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you looking at American history through the lens of the British? Obviously they are going to downplay the fact that America revolted against them and created our own beautiful nation for the people. Loyalists were actually the ones who were the very small minority and that is why they don't even exist today. Additonally the Loyalists joined the Confederates in the war and you know how that happened.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Additonally the Loyalists joined the Confederates in the war and you know how that happened.
      What?
      They were dead

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Loyalists do exist today in large numbers (their descendants) in the Canadian Maritime provinces and Ontario. The province of New Brunswick was literally partitioned off Nova Scotia in 1784 in response to a massive influx of Loyalists fleeing the states.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine being such a loser that the mere thought of self-governance causes you to flee to another country where someone else tells you what to do.

        Really explains a lot about Canadians as a people to be honest.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like you have it all figured out and completely understand the motivations of thousands of families from 250 years ago.

          But yeah. Rah rah self-government and sheeeit.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if King George III sided with the colonists, and eventually North America became the center of the British Empire, with the capital being moved there
    I guess that's probably the alt history of that one anime series where Britain invades Japan with mechs or whatever

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being so afraid of paying a tiny tax that you ape out and start an armed rebellion. Explains a lot about American society.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The war wasn't over a tax, it was over self-government. Britbongs wanted to use the colonies as resource extraction drains while also governing them directly from London, colonists were fine being resource extraction gains as long as they could govern themselves as essentially dominions, but bongs said no so colonists revolted.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't it hilaripus that as doon as America got some wealth and military power they did the same thing but on an even more massive and cartoonishly evik scale to half the world tho

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          cycle of abuse. its not their fault

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            hurt countries hurt countries.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *