19th Century Canadian New England?

As to brutality, I won't comment. I do strenously object to the numbers hinted at by "a large percentage of the population of the 13 colonies fled to avoid being brutalized." Estimates of Loyalist sympathy within the 13 colonies are usually about 20% (of a total population of about 2.5 million). The total number of colonists who actually fled (not including "Black Loyalists" and displaced Indian groups) is about 45,000-60,000, about 10% of the total number of Loyalists but only 2% of the total population. Including the freed slaves and displaced Indians, you only get about 100,000 or so.

That's true - the number of Loyalists who actually fled to Canada was pretty small compared to the total population of Loyalists, let alone the total population of the colonies/USA. I think that the ones who fled tended to be the most committed Loyalists, who had strongly supported Britain and often fought in special loyalist regiments. Most of the Loyalists whose support for the British cause was less intense and more passive usually stayed in the US and reconciled themselves to the new state and national governments. Some states passed harsh laws confiscating the property of all loyalists, but it quickly became obvious that many Loyalists were economically productive citizens and that states would be hurting themselves by forcing them to leave. Most of these laws were repealed within a few years.
 
Sure they do. The British had a long history of rights that vastly predate the US version of the same. Despite US myths to the contrary, the average US citizen was no more "free" after the revolt in the 13 colonies than they were before.

As well, in the context of the time, being a subject of the British Crown was assured protection from the most powerful military force on the planet.



That's not quite accurate. In a Westminster system of government, there isn't a single specific constitutional document like you have in a republic. Instead, the country operates on a collection of said constitutional documents, with tradition filling in the gaps inbetween those documents for the most part. In it's most subtle description, republics are government by lawyers, while a Westminster system is government by culture.



I think you might be buying into the US creation myths a tad much.

As I noted previously, there wasn't any great shift in degree of freedom from prior to post revolt NE.

You're also glossing over the people who would distinctly remember the post-revolt terrors inflicted by the various extremist elements of the rebels on those that they viewed to have not supported the rebellion fervently enough. Remember, those terrors were so vicious, a large percentage of the populations of the 13 colonies fled to avoid being brutalized, terrorized and even killed. Those that were victimized left behind families that even after one or two generations would remember how Uncle Bob had to flee to Upper Canada, leaving behind the family farm, because he was a Crown customs clerk prior to the revolt.

Finally, the simple fact is that people always have been fairly apolitical. Assuming there is no actual significant practical reduction in freedoms, they'll salute whatever flag is put in front of them and mouth the proper words to support the current regime. Why? Because they have other things to deal with.
I'm still confused by your arguement: you state there's a strong desire to return to the Crown in the various States, but at the same time large numbers of those who would have desired a return have already left the States in question, thereby diluting the overall popular will. The remaining population after the ARW are those that either benefitted or were neutrally effected by the revolution, and so these would be the very people least likely to want to return to overseas rule. At the same time you say that the general population is apolitical and would salute whatever flag - if that is so (and regrettably it probably is) then where does the "strong desire" come from that you are banking on? Those who suffered from the Terrors are thos that are living in exile in Nova Scotia/New Brunswick or Upper Canada - so where is their political will to reunite with the perpetrators of their horrors comong from?

These are the reasons I find a return to Monarchical rule by the New Englanders to be unlikely, and rather a gradual economic-leading-to-political union as more likely.
 
Forgetting the Hartford Convention, are we? During the War of 1812, a lot of New Englanders would've wanted to go back under the protection of the Crown.
No, I was just trying to understand Boydfish's arguement, which seemed to have two prongs opposed to each other: easy reintroduction of the Crown to New England from both sides of the Atlantic vs. little desire from the Brits to have any NorAm colonies.
 
I'm not exactly sure what's going on in Boyd's mind, here. Why would New England, after detaching itself from two, seemingly too-strong central governments in less than forty years, willingly re-subject themselves to the first?

I find a Republic of New England far more likely. He also seems to be banking pretty hard on his own view of how revolutions work and the rise of patriotism in the US. He's not providing particularly much evidence or argument for these views, either.

EDIT: And the idea that tariff-happy New England would re-attach itself to free trade loving Britain is absolutely hi-larious.
 
Jaded Railman said:
Why would New England, after detaching itself from two, seemingly too-strong central governments in less than forty years, willingly re-subject themselves to the first?

That's easy: Self-preservation. Trade agreements and even alliances are no real assurance that when and if push came to shove between a hypothetical New England republic and the remaining portion of the United States that the British wouldn't simply abandon/bargain them away to the US. They'd want full protection that only political union would provide.

Dutchie said:
No, I was just trying to understand Boydfish's arguement, which seemed to have two prongs opposed to each other: easy reintroduction of the Crown to New England from both sides of the Atlantic vs. little desire from the Brits to have any NorAm colonies.

You're trying to unify to very different parts of the equation. If New England can convince the British Empire to readmit them, a proposition that I see as running counter to their established policy of the time, then the actual assimilation of the New Englanders back in would not be as difficult as trying to admit a colony that was say, predominantly Spanish or French, due to the same languages, legal concepts and general beliefs.

Dutchie said:
Those who suffered from the Terrors are thos that are living in exile in Nova Scotia/New Brunswick or Upper Canada - so where is their political will to reunite with the perpetrators of their horrors comong from?

Because not every person or family terrorized by the extremists left.

As well, let's say that the extremists lynched Farmer John Smith, who fled with his wife and kids. John's brother Jake and his sister Jane, who weren't targeted by the extremists to the same degree, they remained behind. So chances are, Jake and Jane's families end up with strong memories of the republic extremists in a very negative light.
 
That's easy: Self-preservation. Trade agreements and even alliances are no real assurance that when and if push came to shove between a hypothetical New England republic and the remaining portion of the United States that the British wouldn't simply abandon/bargain them away to the US. They'd want full protection that only political union would provide.

If the Union is so broken that New England feels the need and has the ability to break away, it's not in any position to subsequently threaten New England.

I just think you're reaching really far in an attempt to fulfill OP requirements.
 
EDIT: And the idea that tariff-happy New England would re-attach itself to free trade loving Britain is absolutely hi-larious.

Depends on the timing for this. From about 1840 onwards your correct. Before that Britain was as protectionist as other states itself. In that case, getting inside the vast imperial market and getting full protection from the British military, would be big incentives. You still however have the traditional problem of taxation. New England, accustomed to getting things on the cheap with minimal expenditure wouldn't want to be full citizens in the period after the Napoleonic wars with sizeable taxes to pay off war debts. Not unless the rump US was making very hostile sounds about the devorce.

Steve
 
Top