WI The American Revolutionary war was really the first American Civil War?

Some already consider it as but in this scenario it would be more a domestic affair between the Patriots and the Loyalists. It's famously known that in the revolutionary period 1/3 of Americans were patriots, 1/3 Loyalists, 1/3 neutral.

Essentially the Patriots would be like the southerners attempting to break free and the Loyalists attempting to keep the status quo. Less direct involvement from overseas British forces and Hessians etc. but a primarily domestic affair fought among the Americans themselves.
 
It's famously known that in the revolutionary period 1/3 of Americans were patriots, 1/3 Loyalists, 1/3 neutral.

Those are not the actual numbers, but from a letter, i think from adams, after his presidency. In otl more americans fought for the crown in the war than did British, and the war saw numerous sectarian violent incidents between loyalist and rebels. Hundreds of thousands of loyalist left after the war, civil war fits.
 
Some already consider it as but in this scenario it would be more a domestic affair between the Patriots and the Loyalists. It's famously known that in the revolutionary period 1/3 of Americans were patriots, 1/3 Loyalists, 1/3 neutral.

Essentially the Patriots would be like the southerners attempting to break free and the Loyalists attempting to keep the status quo. Less direct involvement from overseas British forces and Hessians etc. but a primarily domestic affair fought among the Americans themselves.
Not only was that 1/3rds quote not a scholarly detailed account of the war, but it was not even about the American Revolution IIRC but rather John Adams' observation of the French Revolution. In any case, for this scenario to happen the loyalists would need to be wildly more active than IOTL, the British were IOTL always disappointed with how few loyalists actually took up arms.
Those are not the actual numbers, but from a letter, i think from adams, after his presidency. In otl more americans fought for the crown in the war than did British, and the war saw numerous sectarian violent incidents between loyalist and rebels. Hundreds of thousands of loyalist left after the war, civil war fits.
Wrong, IOTL loyalism was always the least popular outlook. The plurality of colonists were neutral at the start of the war, but even at the start there were still more patriots than loyalists and especially as the war dragged on the neutrals tended to join the patriot side as opposed to the loyalist side.
 
Wrong, IOTL loyalism was always the least popular outlook. The plurality of colonists were neutral at the start of the war, but even at the start there were still more patriots than loyalists and especially as the war dragged on the neutrals tended to join the patriot side as opposed to the loyalist side.

I did not say that there were more loyalists than rebels. It said more Americans fought for the crown than did British subjects. About 50,000 fought in the regulars and in the loyalist units. Add to that the numbers who served in the navy, as well as natives. The newest and best numbers i have seens have about 35% rebels, 20% loyalist. The fact that the rebels held most of the ground means that most neutrals more or less supported them, but we can see that they switched when the crown held the ground.

But the point of my argument was to bring to light the numbers of americans on both sides. Interestingly, the british army considered it as civil war as well as they did not reward battle and campaign honours for fights against the rebels, but only against the french and spanish.
 
Top