French block airlift of British troops to Basra

I attempted to post thia at ~10:40 EDT
But the Bellsouth news server has been having
problems (issues, so called) here today.
Therefore I am submitting the article again.
My apologies if, in fact, this is a duplicate
--
Rostyk


Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed or
treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.
But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes. Similarly
for the more common folk. And the revolutionary ideas from
the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
the French did any organized meddling or not.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

Mighty big "clique", especially when you add in the artistes,
farmers & others.

Say, what "class" would Franklin belong to any way?

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

While lawyers may qualify as "low life types", they don't
automatically go into the "criminal" class. Land-owners
simply do not go in either on that grounds alone.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?


From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the
underlying myths and shillobeths that you've been taught since
Kindergarden but perhaps not everything you've be taught is true?
Most folks get older, I nearly said mature, on along the way towards
the grave cope, or adjust, to the reality of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy
and other props ...


Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

snip

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the
sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.


I was somewhat startled to read in "Rebels & Redcoats", Hugh Bicheno,
Harper Collins, 2003;-

(Page 22);- Gage ... received a reply ... (Page 23)ordered him to arest
the members of the illegal Provincial Congress, which he knew from
several _well placed informers_ (emphasis mine) was meeting in Concord
.... Gage's spies had also told him aconsiderable supply of arms and
military stores was cahed at Concord including three 24 pounder cannon
whose significance has gone strangely unremarked by historians.
These were 5,600 pound monsters requiring eight to ten men to
serve themand a team of six horses to pull them ... they were seige guns ...
how they came to be uried in the courtyard of Concord jail is a mystery.
....
The cannon fitted the jigsaw in another way. The conspirators were
desperate to provoke some bloody event to plarize opinion, and the
French would have regarded a brace and a half of 24-ponders as seedcorn.
Pages 24-25 are maps
(Page 26) ... The existance of such powerful weapons at such a place
and time is one of those ugly facts so harmful to beautiful theories,
in this case the myth of peace-loving farmers spontaneously rising up
against unprovoked aggression. They also provide an explanation why
the cautious Gage was suddenly inspired to undertake a high-risk
operation deep into territory where he had many informers and
_must have known_ (my emphasis) the local Militia had been drilling
for just such an eventuality.

I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
never been aware of this ordnance before; I could never really understand
the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
to stay on the road/track?

Elsewhere, I'm sure the author says that 'the British' had _not_ shipped
this size of ordnance to the American landmass ... I might be wrong here ...
where did they originate?

Curiously the four-part accompanying documentary WGBH / BBC
presented by Richard Holmes elided over this ordnance, Richard Holmes
seemed to prefer riding on contemporary buses ...

I highly recommend the book, although it 'accompanies the TV series its
'slant' seems different.

Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

--

Brian

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.


so smuggling is accepted as a description

A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful

The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
it.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.

Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
not be unusual.

Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
corps.

It's complete bunk! Not a strawman at all though. Just an observation on a
significant intellectual force driving the interpretation of American history
over the past 30 years.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.


SMH

Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.

underlying myths and shillobeths that you've been taught since
Kindergarden but perhaps not everything you've be taught is true?
Most folks get older, I nearly said mature, on along the way towards
the grave cope, or adjust, to the reality of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy
and other props ...

Ahh yes, the characterization of those who disagree with you as ignorant or
naive, and certainly in need of true education.

Conservatives seem to trash political opponents as "immoral" while liberals
seem to go the "ignorant" route. You seem to be liberal.

I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
never been aware of this ordnance before; I could never really understand
the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
to stay on the road/track?

I've been down "battle road" between Lexington and Concord and I never
really understood why the British force stuck to the road. At the time,
the land would have been pretty much open, so there would have been no
need to hack through the forest that is currently there. I think they
were expecting to be met along the road by reinforcements, so that may
be a factor.

The British did eventually put out flankers on either side of the road
ahead of the column to flush out militia massing for another ambush. Still,
the casualty rate was huge.

Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

Bien sur!


SMH

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed or
treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.

Don't mean to simplify the American Revolution into solely some pure,
idealistic movement to better humankind. Such a "spin" on the event
was fairly common in history books up to the 60's.

With the rise of the liberal left, interpretations became more complex
(which is good), but IMHO, more political in nature, and overly harsh.
It's gone from American history seen as a golden light to one seen only
as darkness.

As far as "oppression" of the colonies goes, I think you are generally
correct. As seen from today's perspective, what is so wrong and oppresive
about asking colonists to chip in for their own defense (our "French and
Indian" war)? Seems not unlike what the US has done, or tried to do, in
both Iraqi adventures!

My thinking is that the American colonies were simply used to governing
themselves (largely left on their own by Britain up to the war) and would
no longer tolerate being governed from abroad. "Coming of age" I suppose.

But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes. Similarly
for the more common folk. And the revolutionary ideas from

Taxes have always been a sensitive subject with Americans!!! This sensitivity
continues to this day.

the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
the French did any organized meddling or not.

My understanding is that the French were prepared to keep the conflict going
without direct involvement for as long as possible. They really did not
expect a successful outcome, but would have been happy just to drain down
Britain in financial and military resources.


SMH

John Keeney wrote:

Say, what "class" would Franklin belong to any way?

I think he was financially quite well off by the time of the revolution.
But it was all self-made money, so no one should be too harsh on him
for having coin in his pocket.

"Professional" class I suppose.


SMH

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message news:

I was somewhat startled to read in "Rebels & Redcoats", Hugh Bicheno,
Harper Collins, 2003;-

Which generally has not received very good reviews (mostly its the
same ol' stuff repackaged). I've only leafed through it, and was
unimpressed.

(Page 22);- Gage ... received a reply ... (Page 23)ordered him to arest
the members of the illegal Provincial Congress, which he knew from
several _well placed informers_ (emphasis mine) was meeting in Concord
... Gage's spies had also told him aconsiderable supply of arms and
military stores was cahed at Concord including three 24 pounder cannon
whose significance has gone strangely unremarked by historians.

Er, this is because there were no 24 pounder cannon. The intel was
wrong.

These were 5,600 pound monsters requiring eight to ten men to
serve themand a team of six horses to pull them ... they were seige guns ...
how they came to be uried in the courtyard of Concord jail is a mystery.
...
The cannon fitted the jigsaw in another way. The conspirators were
desperate to provoke some bloody event to plarize opinion, and the
French would have regarded a brace and a half of 24-ponders as seedcorn.
Pages 24-25 are maps
(Page 26) ... The existance of such powerful weapons at such a place
and time is one of those ugly facts so harmful to beautiful theories,
in this case the myth of peace-loving farmers spontaneously rising up
against unprovoked aggression.

Wow! Mr Bicheno seems to be really out of touch with American
historiagraphy.

They also provide an explanation why
the cautious Gage was suddenly inspired to undertake a high-risk
operation deep into territory where he had many informers and
_must have known_ (my emphasis) the local Militia had been drilling
for just such an eventuality.

Of course he did. No news in that. Concord *was* a provincial
magazine, and there *was* ordnance there, but only amounted to a
couple of three pounders, a couple of casks of powder and ball, and
the odd provisions stores (flour etc).

I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
never been aware of this ordnance before;
I could never really understand
the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
to stay on the road/track?

Smith wasn't one of the brightest cookies on the block, and was not
really given another important field command, but mainly served in
garrison duty for the remainder of his stay in America.

Elsewhere, I'm sure the author says that 'the British' had _not_ shipped
this size of ordnance to the American landmass ... I might be wrong here ...
where did they originate?

Britain, perhaps captured from the French, forged in America. . . 24
pounders (presumably iron) did exist in some of the fortifications
that existed and were taken over by the provinicial governments.
None, however, were at Concord. New Hampshire, e.g., did offer some
24 and 32 pounders to the New England Army besieging Boston in June.

Curiously the four-part accompanying documentary WGBH / BBC
presented by Richard Holmes elided over this ordnance, Richard Holmes
seemed to prefer riding on contemporary buses ...

The 24 pounders appear to only exist in Mr Bicheno's fervid
imagination. AFAIK, no where does Gage mention this as a reason for
going to Concord. In fact, his first intention was to destroy the
magazine at Worcester (fifty miles away), but this was ruled out as
too far to safely march. In his view, Concord was a much safer
objective in that it was much closer. Of course, the "Americans" all
knew it was his objective as well.

I highly recommend the book, although it 'accompanies the TV series its
'slant' seems different.

Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

Unless it was captured ordance from the French and Indian War, any
artillery ordnance was not otherwise French. The French government
did not make the decision to assist the "rebels" until the spring of
1776, and the first French ship to make port with artillery
(AMPHITRITE) did not arrive until the spring of 1777, some two years
after Lexington and Concord, and the French only supplied us with
light field guns beside. I.e. 4-pounders. I am not aware of a single
French siege gun arriving in America that was not part of the French
Army. American siege guns, including a couple of "light" 24 pounders
captured at Saratoga, were either captured from the British or
manufactured locally. There is no conspiricy here, sorry.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

In message , Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

No. Pretty much the standard "British" one since the first ball flew
downrange at Lexington Green.

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

Standard Propaganda Mk 1. What Mr. Sharrock fails to point out is
that the British had their own large land owners [Penns, Allens,
Johnsons, Fairfaxes] slave owners [guess where "rebel contraband"
ended up in the South], "smugglers" [Shippens, Allens] and lawyer
[Galloway] cliques of their own. The "smuggler" tag is laid on all
those who desired not to trade with just British merchants.
Afterall, after the tea act, anyone who desired to purchase their tea
from any other house/trading company other than the East India Company
was a smuggler. Convenient that, no?

As for the loyalists, I would just point to the OP to have a look
around those regions that were occupied by British troops. I also
refer to my reply to Mr Willshaw.

soc.culture.russian spared this tete-et-tete

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

In message , "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Its hardly likely since Washington himself and so served however
many so called loyalists who sided with the British during
the war of Independence were indeed punished, in fact
many fled to Canada

Captured loyalists were treated like any other prisoners of war
(captured deserters who subsequently enlisted in the British Army are
an entirely different matter-though the fact many did so under duress
certainly muddled matters). Few were punished. Of those that "fled"
after the war, they did so primarily because they considered
themselves British and not Americans so chose to live under British
rule rather than American governance. Few fled for their safety.
Some 80,000 (high end estimate) loyalists were deemed to have "fled,"
but another estimated 400,000 remained. Few were mistreated, and it
was quite common for Continental officers, e.g., to marry loyalists
or, at the very least, women from nominally loyalist families during
and after the war (B. Arnold was not all that exceptional in that
regard). Most of the really-bad-mistreatment of loyalists came in the
tit-for-tats in areas where governmental control had been lost; the
southern states and the Mohawk Valley etc. Even of the 80,000 or so
"refugees" only 3,000 or so submitted property loss claims to HMG and
of these, only about 2/3 were considered legit. While the treatment
of loyalists was less than spectacular in many instances, it was not
the wholesale persecution that British (and by inheritance, Canadian)
propoganda made it out to be then and ever since. In general,
Americans were treated much worse at the hands of the British (but
again not as bad as propaganda has made it out to be).

I understand your point vis a vis "turncoats," but your description of
the treatment of the loyalists is somewhat exaggerated.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed