Who's Side Would You Be On?

This is a question I've thought about a lot over the past few years. While anyone is welcome to respond, I suspect most replies will come from the US. As a history buff, I've read a lot about the American Revolution and I sometmes wonder what I would have done under those circumstances. If you were living in America in the 1770's, would you have sided with the Loyalists or the rebels? What would have motivated you to make that choice? The question may seem a no-brainer to some, but think of the risks and sacrifices either choice would mean. What would you do?

It would probably come down to what you had to gain/lose.

It is easy to look back and say, "America, fark yeah! I would take on every red coat on the planet!!!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leadduck

This is a question I've thought about a lot over the past few years. While anyone is welcome to respond, I suspect most replies will come from the US. As a history buff, I've read a lot about the American Revolution and I sometmes wonder what I would have done under those circumstances. If you were living in America in the 1770's, would you have sided with the Loyalists or the rebels? What would have motivated you to make that choice? The question may seem a no-brainer to some, but think of the risks and sacrifices either choice would mean. What would you do?

---

Do you side with the free staters or with the state? If with the free staters, then I would imagine that you would be counted as part of the rebels.

Tough question...

If I were in America at the time, I would have probably been against the whole taxation-representation thing, and I would have resonated with lots of the things being said at the time by the soon to be founders.

That said, I probably wouldn't have been very confident that a war against the British would have been a successful venture.

:shrug:

I mighta hid behind a tree and sided with the winner :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGeek

I mighta hid behind a tree and sided with the winner :)

---

I suspect that's exactly what most folks did.

I was surprised to read that George Washington remained a loyalist for a long while before the King's actions finally turned him to the other side. No idea where I would have been had I lived back in those days. It would have depended on my circumstances and beliefs I suppose. :hmmm:

I'm Canadian. From that perspective, I would say the Loyalists. Seeing as Canada had to defend ourselves from the rebels and then once it was all over, decided to just ask Britain for our independence, there needed not be so much blood shed.

Yes, as a Canadian I would think you would have remained loyal to the king. Especially after your country came under attack by rebel forces. However, teh US would never have acheived independence simply by asking for it. The war didn't begin as a war of independence. Colonists were fighting for their rights to be upheld. Right up until congress agreed to issue the declaration, many were still hoping to reconcile with England. Even General Howe, commander of the British forces in America had hoped for reconciliation and had objected to the war.

Great question, Leadduck. I'm not American, but in such a situation, with the limited resources available to the unfortunate citizens at the time, which I think most of us would have been, I would either have been heavily influenced by the Govt propaganda or would have run off into the woods somewhere and tried to get by by myself.

Another point is, from what (little) I know about US history, it seems the government has always been primarily concerned with developing ties and promoting development of the wealthy and excessively industrious, so those of us just doing an ordinary job would be the pawns in such an undertaking and as such would be ending up either dead, severely injured, or waiting for payment that would never come.

I think an interesting question is - knowing what we do now, would you have joined/participated in the Vietnam war?

I wouldnt have cared, until they came to get my gun(s) and then I would have met them at the bridge.

When we talk about the Government at that time, we're talking about King George and his Parliament, as the US government was yet to be formed. Most of the propaganda at that time was created by the the colonies, the most influential of which was Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

It's true that many if not most of the wealthy colonists remained loyal to the crown, though there were exceptions such as John Han****. An interesting pont is that the average colonist had a higher standard of living than the average citizen in England.

Excellent question about Viet Nam. I was in my teens and 20's during the conflict and had mixed feelings as to whether or not we should be there. Before I graduated from college and my deferment expired, the draft ended. As a result, I wasn't forced to make that choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I wouldnt have cared, until they came to get my gun(s) and then I would have met them at the bridge.

---

So, I assume you would have been among those who answered Paul Revere's call when the regulars did indeed, come for the colonists' guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leadduck

such as Joh Han****.

---

Watch your language please ! :rofl2:

I know snippets of history. Nothing comprehensive but my impression is that a people taking up arms in a revolt against the King was unprecedented at that time. I believe Cromwell's revolt was a hundred or more years previous to our revolution IIRC. It would be as if we, here and now, took up arms against our government. Heady stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Watch your language please ! :rofl2:

---

Oh, sorry. I forgot about the all-seeing eye of the censor. I'll go wash out my mouth with my SRD Blood Orange. Should I have said, John H@nc0ck?

Honestly?

I don't know. But me being me, I probably would have cared for nothing but the survival of my daughters. They are more important than anything else, including my political opinions. I'd probably have tried to keep my nose out of the whole mess and tried to get on with things and / or moved away from the fighting. War is not about who is right but about who is left.

I hear same kind of questions about our civil war 1917 every now and then so this is not only about your war but many other liberation/civil wars as well: i do not know as i didn't live those times. I can't really know how it was to live back then. It is about what i have to gain/lose or what i have to protect. Many were easily mislead by their leaders and some were forced to fight. Probably most people had no choice.
These questions are even more difficult to consider as we usually seem to think about the outcome of the crisis while people of those times lived in an uncertainty without knowing how it is going to end.

Since I was born in Oklahoma, I doubt I would even be aware of the impending war, although surely I would be mistrustful of all you white men

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Since I was born in Oklahoma, I doubt I would even be aware of the impending war, although surely I would be mistrustful of all you white men

---

Why you filthy lazy injun.";"";"";":roflmao:roflmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leadduck

So, I assume you would have been among those who answered Paul Revere's call when the regulars did indeed, come for the colonists' guns?

---

Yes, considering that a gun was necessary for personal defense against the French and Native Americans as well as the criminal and that the colonies were mostly rural the Crown did not differentiate between the loyal and the rebel when it came to confiscation. Many colonists were still ticked about the French/Indian war, they left their homes to be burned and families murdered while enlisting in the militias that protected the Crowns interest and not the colonials. Some of the Crowns propaganda told the people of GB that we were unthankful for the Crowns efforts to protect the Crowns interest in the New World.

Don't really know much about the American war but I think if I'd been around in 1642 for the first of the three English civil wars, If I'd had to choose, I'd probably have been with the Parliamentarians against the King.

The King's men had the nicer outfits though!

Gareth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankenstein

I think an interesting question is - knowing what we do now, would you have joined/participated in the Vietnam war?

---

As an Australian I would support separation of the colony from the crown, but I would prefer it to be non violent as was the case with Canada and Australia. But I do suspect that when Canada and Australia asked for independence England thought here we go again and just gave in.

As for the question about the Vietnam war, this is something I thought about a lot when I was younger. Before I joined the army I felt that my life was missing something and if I was around at that time I would have volunteered. But now that I am older I would think twice about going into any war zone.

Interesting question.

My people where here, but mostly preachers so they may have sided with the Church of England. On the other hand, they came from Scotland and may not have had any love for the Crown. I don't really know.

The Civil War would have seen me in the Union Army, or at least my Great-Great Grandfather was.

Viet Nam? I was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I wouldnt have cared, until they came to get my gun(s) and then I would have met them at the bridge.

---

Amen brother! I've earned every stinkin' one and nobody has a right to them no matter how "some" vote.

I would side with the British if I got to help take everyone's guns.... :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

I would side with the British if I got to help take everyone's guns.... :hmmm:

---

You can have mine......one bullet at a time! ;)

My heritage is French-Canadian so I'm certain I would have sided with the rebel colonists.
Namaste,
Morty -_-

I would be on the rebels side but it would be for a not so popular reason. Before there was the tax iusse there was a religious iusse, the so called christian protestants were hanging Baptist in Smithsfield Mas. If any of you don't think there is a Christian heritage in the USA history read "America in crimson Red" by James R Beller. Happy reading!:)

A lot of times, when a situation like the one in Colonial America arises, someone will say "Don't do that...somebody might get hurt."
Folks, some things are worth getting hurt for. A few are worth dying for. Some of the men who rebelled against the King understood that and they rebelled anyway!
I once read an old proverb. "When you draw your sword against the King, you must throw away the scabbard."

It's a serious proposition.

Since I started the thread, I suppose I should give my own response. I think it would depend not only on my life experiences up to that time but also on my age at the time hostilities broke out. In my young teen years, I was very conservative and rule conscious. The thought of rebelling against the established authority would have been inconceivable. In my late teens and twenties, I was more idealistic and more impulsive. And as many young people are, rebellious. If I had been that age after the Boston massacre, I would probably have marched at Lexington and Concord. Toward my late twenties and thirties, with a family, I'd have to think long and hard about what to do. By late middle age, with the kids grown, I may have leaned more toward the rebels again. If I were the age I am now, late fifties, I think I'd be inclined to say, "The king be damned! Give me liberty!"

As a younger man I probably would have sided with the crown out of deference more than anything. Today, I would instead side with the 'terrorists' in the cause of 'freedom'.