Why?

[John]

Well, it shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.|rant|

[jaded68]

Please...expand on your post. I am quite interested in your thoughts on the subject. :)

Tracie

[Peter Goodey]

I think it may have been an example of English humour.

A phrase along the lines of "it should never have been allowed in the first place" is often used as a light-hearted comment on some undesirable and widely condemned current event. The implication of the remark is that the origins of this event lie in some other earlier historical event, which could or should have been prevented thus avoiding the alleged outcome.

The argument is of course historically and philosophically unsustainable but part of the humour lies in the knowledge that both parties to the remark know that this is so and both know that the other person knows it.

At least that was what I read into it. And now John will probably tell me that I’m quite wrong :o

[Kathryn Norman]

I believe that the Revolutionary War or War of Independence was started because the colonists were being taxed without representation. How would you feel?
Cheers!
Kathryn Norman

[Peter Goodey]

"How would you feel?"

Old I may be but I'm afraid I wasn't around in those days. If I had been, I might have been reading Tom Paine. Look him up if you've never heard of him.

And I'm afraid "no taxation without representation" isn't a slogan that would have inspired me to get out of my seat, let alone take up arms. Surely the American education system includes something on the noble and universal principles involved? No Thomas Jefferson?

[Russell Saunders]

Hi there....

Well actually I've read a few more that just the one... but I read a book once that suggested that the Boston Tea Party was started by a group of Masons after a Lodge meeting. It also said that we (the Brits) lost at Bunker Hill and therefore lost the war, due to the fact that the commanding generals on both sides were also masons and the British General did not fight in his normal manner, hence getting his troops slaughtered and losing.

Now I don't put this forward as my own idea, but certainly it raises some intrique if this were true or even partly so.

And I'm sure that our American cousins will have a view on this.

Regards all

Russell

[Peter Goodey]

"started by a group of Masons..."

What? Not by Giant Green Lizards?

[Kathryn Norman]

Actually the resistance of the colonists began when England imposed the Stamp Act of 1765 on the colonists to pay for British troops . This Stamp Act forced the colonists to pay tax on all printed paper. It wasn't a huge amount of money but what made this Act offensive to the colonists was that it was an attempt to raise money without the approval of the colonial legislature. The colonists feared that without resistance to this Act England would in the future impose even greater taxes.
Congress appealed to George III who repealed it, however at the same time it was repealed a new edict was given by the Parliament that England had the right to impose what it wanted. This caused resistance and an undeground group formed called "The Sons of Liberty." From this time on there were small conflicts,resistance to all duties imposed by England on all good. These conflicts grew more and more violent, and eventually led to the "Boston Tea Party" and Bunker Hill etc.
So we really can't begin the Revolution with the "shot heard round the world" on Bunker Hill...or the Tea Party . The resistance actually started with the Stamp Act.
I hope this sheds a little light, although admittedly I put it all in a tiny nutshell.
Kathryn Norman

[peter nicholl]

I believe that the answer to WHY? is “It was inevitable”. As Colonies expand they go from Pioneering/TrailBlazing to Consolidation and eventually when there is some degree of stability, to a Society. America had settled enough for there to be a Thinking Class, with all that that implies. The cause of the Revolution was not the Stamp Act, nor the Boston Tea Party, for they were the straws which with others would finally break the back of that particular camel. They might be triggers, but the cause was The Age of Enlightenment. With its roots in the previous Century, the Enlightenment looked at the Liberty of Man and the rebirth of the Republic. With the outcome of the English Civil War, the concept of a modern Republic had become more than an idea and America had not been isolated from those events. In fact, one school of thought says that the final battle in the Civil War was the Battle of the Great Severn in Maryland in 1655. Also, there was travel across the Atlantic in both directions.Franklin would travel to France where he would be regarded as the personification of the Age of Enlightenment. So the mood was set and with the ending of the French Indian Wars, something of a vacuum ensued. The English sought to establish a firmer control on the Colonies without realising a number of things; that the Colonists had found that despite their differences they could join together to stand up to a common foe; that people like George Washington, Benedict Arnold and Robert Rogers had fought alongside the British and knew their ways. OK, so Benedict Arnold would change sides later and although Robert would side with the British and form the King’s Rangers, some of his original Rangers fired on the British at Concord and Lexington. So, the intellectuals gave the motive, the “army” the means and things like the Stamp Act, the Proclamation that the Western expansion should stop at the Appellations, the opportunity. Why did the British lose? Because then as later on in its history, the determination of people fighting for their Country would be underestimated by the British: see the retreat from Kabul in the First Afghan War and the Battle of Isandlwana in the Zulu War. That, together with the facts that the Colonists did not fight in the European way and had some help from the French (Sun Tzu was right then) meant that we lost.
The Above Carries The Following Health Warning: My History Studies were very Anglocentric and came to rest around 1066.

[Peter Goodey]

I'm pretty much with you on this one, Peter.

(I might take issue with one section "why did the British lose?" which underplays the significance of the level of support in Britain for the revolutionaries and to some extent doesn't sit easily with your perceptive comments on the Age of Enlightenment).

It raises an interesting question which I hinted at more obliquely: Why weren't the intellectual roots of the American Revolution and the ideals that fuelled it not the first thing to be mentioned by the American contributors to this thread?

Perhaps George Orwell had the answer - "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past".

[peter nicholl]

:) Hi Peter
With the Revolution and the War of 1812, the Americans have got the best of 3, so I don't really want to up the stakes to the best of 5, but ..... Having just seen the re-run the History of Britain which covered the period, you're right about some of the feeling over here, however with the time taken to cross the Atlantic I see it as less important than the fighting ability of the armies. Playing "what if ?" the outcome may have been different if Wolfe and Clive had still been about, they would have only been about 50/60. Also, there were the numbers involved, while the Americans did not have the same sort of regular army as the British, their pool of people to call upon was much larger (cf the UN in the Korean War). I would liken it to some sort of hybrid football match where the Colonists were playing NFL rules with an unlimited number of substitutions, while the British were playing FIFA Rules, 3 subs and no return of "rested" players: size is important. Still, it is still the Season of Goodwill, so Happy New Year to All.
Peter

[Geoffers]

With the Revolution and the War of 1812, the Americans have got the best of 3, Peter
I don't think the Amercans can claim to have gotten the best of the war of 1812. Surely the best that can be said for these two wars (if the word 'best' can be used in relation to any armed conflict) is one-a-piece.

Waes haeil

Geoffers

[Peter Goodey]

In order to say that anyone got the best of it, it is necessary to identify some tangible gains by one side or the other.

[Peggy]

Is it called "The War of 1812" in the UK? I'd have figured it just came under the general heading of the Napoleonic Wars. (I've always been relieved that Hornblower wasn't fighting any of our ships!)

An old (1937) teachers' edition of an encyclopedia, which belonged to my grandaunt, says that the War of 1812 is "recognized today as quite an unnecessary struggle." The only "plus" I can recall from school history was the development/improvement of the US Navy, and of ship design. A large negative was that the New England states came close to seceding.

Of course, my gr-gr-gr-grandfather in the NY Militia did get a pension, if that counts as a gain. :)

Peggy

[peter nicholl]

:o Geoffers, I thought "Shall I point to something that might prove contentious by saying "I don't want to start WWIII, but.."", so I went for 2 out of 3. Which I suppose shows that the medium is the message.
I do believe that although the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 (Yes, Peggy we do call it that over here- but that may well due to the song "The Battle of New Orleans" and Yul Brynner's portrayal of Lafayette) with the main issues unresolved and returned things, more or less, to the status quo ante, if other outcomes are taken into account, the US won on points. I don't see that Britain got a lot out of it, other than the Royal Navy getting a mention in The Star Spangled Banner. The Americans became far more united as a result of the War. The US Navy emerged as a creditable force, respected for its fighting ability and seamanship by the RN. The Springfield Armoury and Eli Whitney in their efforts to produce muskets brought the theory of mass production into reality. The expansion of the US brought people from all over the World, so I would say that in the same way that the Norman Conquest defined the future for Britain, the effects of what the Americans see as at least a Diplomatic Victory has shaped the World's future. |rant| Did I start off being embarressed?


Oh and Peggy, don't worry about Hornblower, try Captain Jack Aubrey in Master and Commander, The far Side of The World- the book not the film

[Geoffers]

Hello Peter
I think we'll have to agree to differ on the success to one side or the other of the 1812 war - but I'd have to agree with the encyclopedia quoted by Peggy:

An old (1937) teachers' edition of an encyclopedia, which belonged to my grandaunt, says that the War of 1812 is "recognized today as quite an unnecessary struggle."

Geoffers

[Peggy]

[due to the song]

Well, Peter, I wasn't going to mention the song. <G> Oddly enough, one of my recent genie discoveries is that an Anglo-Irish cousin of my ancestor was the surgeon for a regiment that ran through the briars and ran through the brambles. The poor chap must have been a busy man that day. The casualties were high for an "overtime" battle in an "unnecessary struggle."

[try Captain Jack Aubrey]

I've read one or two of the Aubrey books, but Hornblower is still my man. Can't switch from early favorites that easily. And have you ever read the story "Honario Harpplayer, RN" by Harry Harrison? :)

Btw, does everyone know that there is an American burial site from the War of 1812 on the grounds of Dartmoor prison? "Dulce et decorum est. . . ." says the monument.

Peggy

[peter nicholl]

:) Hi Geoffers
What I like about these forums (fora?) is that while the pessimist will never convince the optimist that the glass is half empty and the optimist will never convince the pessimist it's half full, it is all done with :cool: .
:) Sorry Peggy have only read the Stainless Steel Rat, etc. And, Yes, Dartmoor was built as a PoW Camp, initially for the French and their Allies. It's an hour and a half's drive away for me.
Anyway the original point, which I thought might be contentious, was about the Revolution and that the British had extended lines of supply and communications. Also, when on the move they had their camp followers with them and had to forage for a lot more to feed them all. For the Colonists, rather than a ragtag army of popular myth, the Americans had relatively short lines of supply and communication. The short service committment for most of them seems to mean that they could face the British with a fairly constant supply of fresh troops, skilled in Forest Warfare. On the Mythology Front, do many Americans know that "Washington crossing the Delaware" was painted in 1851 and the "Spirit of '76" painted in 1891? They certainly do the business in Heroism against Enormous Odds Stakes. My question is "Were the odds stacked in the other direction?"

Peter

[CaseTested]

TODAY !!!.......... Exactly 190 years later.......................

January 8th is the day commemorated as the victory day for the Battle of New Orleans in the United States. Tragically, this battle was fought and only ended more than two weeks AFTER the 'Treaty of Ghent' was signed (Dec 24, 1814). Britain lost over 2000 soldiers (including General Pakenham) compared to the US's 71 killed.. Even after the British forces withdrew into the Gulf of Mexico, they continued firing on Fort St. Philip for over a week before finally sailing out to sea.

Less than an hours drive from where I currently reside .....Britain sent upwards of 14,000 troops to fight in the Louisiana campaign during the War of 1812. United States troups were in the area of 5,000. US troups, led by Major General Andrew Jackson consisted of regular army soldiers; militias from 4 different states, Louisiana pirates (see history of Jean Lafitte), Choctaw (prounounced Chaw-taw) Indians; and free black soldiers.

Ironically, this day (January 8th) is no longer celebrated in the United States with parades, fireworks, picnics, etc.(similar to the current 4th of July celebrations) as it once was during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson and shortly thereafter.

Johnny Horton's song 'The Battle of New Orleans" (1959) - taking his tune from the old " 8th of January" song - is not quite in-tune(sic) to the memory of all these fine men who gave their lives for their county and/or beliefs.

[CaseTested]

A local note here .......... this past Saturday, the 8th of January in New Orleans, Louisiana - the day known as the day of the 'Battle of New Orleans' and "The last battle of the last war ever fought between England and the United States" ...a symposium at the Historic New Orleans Research Center was held.
The overall theme was to showcase the "great courage and fortitude" displayed by British soldiers and seamen. The symposium featured the director of National Museums Liverpool, England and the curator and head of research services for the Historic New Orleans Collection's Williams Research Center with history scholars from many U.S. universities.



:..........................................- but that may well due to the song "The Battle of New Orleans" and Yul Brynner's portrayal of Lafayette).......................


A notation to your post, if you please....
Me thinks you may have yor Frenchies confused (although the provincial 'pronuciation' of the name is identical).

Here in southern Louisiana, there is a vast difference.

Yul Brynner played 'Jean Lafitte ' ( c.1780-c.1826) in the 1959 version of the movie 'The Bucaneer', a remake of the 1931 film by the same name, staring Frederick March.

'Lafayette' (actually Gilbert du Mottier, the Marquis de Lafayette, 1757-1834) was not a pirate!.............but that is a different story!

It is indeed interesting to reflect on the fact that despite the turbulant early relationship between England and the American colonists, our two countries have long since been strongly united.

And yet. after 200 years of practice, we just can't seem to quite learn the original lyrics to this honorable tune ...........

Regards,
Alex

[Peggy]

Ah! Thank you, Alex. I couldn't imagine what the Marquis (or Yul Brynner, as I haven't seen the movie) was doing in the War of 1812. :)

Just what is the "provincial" pronunciation? I learned to put the emphasis on the "fay" in LaFAYette Co., MS. What is the Big Easy version? Jean the pirate isn't pronounced "Lafeet?"

Peggy

[CaseTested]

Hi Peggy:

'Lafayette' and 'Lafitte' were once both pronounced "La-FEET". One must stop to consider that French spelling tends to preserve obsolete pronunciation rules. This is mainly due to extreme phonetic changes since the Old French period without any corresponding change in spelling. Especially so when you consider our local Creole, Cajun-French (Arcadian) and Patois speaking sub-cultures. There are even cities that have their own dialects (Breaux Bridge is one of them),
Trying to figure it out grammatically or phonetically? The result is nearly impossible to predict the spelling based on the sound alone. Just remember that almost all French consonants are not pronounced and pronunciation of certain letters can change if the following word begins with a consonant. We place our emphasis on the last syllable. Anyway, you end up with Laf-ee-ET'.
In Baton Rouge ( located half-way between New Orleans and Lafayette), we say ... laf-e-ET........ Whereas 'Nawlins' inhabitants tend to pronounce it about 6 different ways.
Confusing, Non?

Regards,
Alex

[peter nicholl]

Thanks Alex
As I say, right man, wrong spelling. Although I thought that I hadn't done too badly after 45 years and a film that I only saw through taking my sister, who had a crush on Yul Brynner :) . For the battle itself, it goes to just what a good defensive position will do. Sometimes it will only buy time as at Thermopylae and the Alamo, or may work out well for the defenders as at Rourke's Drift and New Orleans. I wonder whether Sir Edward Packenham thought "I have to hand it to Arthur, this must have been how the Frenchies felt at the Lines of Torres Vedras"?

Was it all worth it? The same question may be asked of the Battle of Sedgemoor (its site is a few, in US terms, miles away from where I "pen" this) in 1685. The army of King James II defeated the Duke of Monmouth. Its outcome and the subsequent acts of Judge Jefferies and the Bloody Assizes are still a talking point hereabouts :eek: . But only 3 years later James himself had lost out to the Glorious Revolution. Sedgemoor is sometimes wrongly cited as the last battle on English soil, in fact we were still doing it up to the mid-1700s. But there again, it seems that it is a widely held view that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the War was over, whereas Article 1 of the Treaty of Ghent talks of the cessation of hostilities after the Treaty is ratified and that didn't happen until mid-February.

I wonder what percentage of present day English-speaking American families can trace their roots back to a presence in America prior to 1812? I suspect, not a lot, hence the War of 1812 was not a big issue for them. Although
they may have brought other baggage with them, it was coming to a Land of Opportunity and some may even enjoyed what they saw during the War and couldn't wait to get back.

As for the original lyrics, over here, while most people may just about manage the first verse, there are an awful lot of La-las during the second (if it ever gets that far!).

Regards

Peter

[Kathryn Norman]

Hi Peter:
To get back to the Revolution.......there are many English speaking Americans who can trace their families back to a time before the Revolution and whose families have gone on to fight in the War of 1812. Wasn't it the many English speaking "Colonists" who fought their former countrymen for their independence?
Peace to all,I say....
Kathryn Norman

[Stephen M. Kohler]

England had at first allowed the colonies the right to self government. Colonists created confederations between north eastern colonies (Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire) for protection against Indian attacks out of Canada. The crown attempted to establish a greater dominion through a single government over New England under the authority of one governor. Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Jersey(s) were annexed into the dominion. In 1765 England imposed the Stamp Act to revenue the growing government. England attempted to gain greater control of New England and was non-negotiable about allowing the colonies self government. In the minds of the colonists taxation without consent was an intolerable innovation. The dislike of taxation coupled with a suspicion of a growing British government created the right combination for American Liberty or in other words the formula for freedom.

By the way - There was no revolution but rather an American War for Independence (To throw off British rule, to retain liberty, and maintain self government).

Respectfully submitted,
Stephen
(Descended from Loyalists, Hessians, and colonists fighting for and against American Independence)

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Kathryn,
It was a well constructed rhetorical question, but yes, for the most part it was English speaking "Colonists" who fought their former countrymen for their independence? However, there were Germans on both sides, and French and Polish on the American side.

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” John Jay in the Federalist #2

/R
Stephen
Washington, DC

[Peggy]

Hello Stephen,

Wait a sec! <g> What about my Dutch ancestors? Most (but not all) of the earlier Dutch, French, German, and other immigrants [18 languages were spoken in New Amsterdam] were speaking English by the 1770's. Their descendants could be found in several colonies.

But when it comes to being descended from the same ancestors and professing the same religion . . . I suppose that's what Jay would have liked "Providence" to have arranged.

Peggy
(Descended from Dutch, English, Swedish Pomeranian, French, Scots, Palatine German, & other ancestors of varying religions, and with relatives who fought on both sides.)

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Hello Peggy,
I stand corrected. We can not forget the New Amsterdam aka New York Dutch or the many other nationalities involved in the birth of a nation. The bloodlines and the social congregations of the Dutch and the British had been interwined for several centuries by that time. Many of the English ships were piloted by Dutch pilots. All of whom spoke one modicum or another of English.

My Hessian Soldier, Private Christian Schweinsberger, gggggreatgrandfather married Catherine Harple (of Dutch or Prussian descent) living in New York City during the AWI.

/R

Stephen
Washington, DC

[Stephen M. Kohler]

I noticed that an interesting thread “WHY” stopped here after this post and the next. I further noticed that neither the author of this post or the following post ever wrote another post within this forum. Interestingly, although the author claims they wrote this on American Independence Day (the Fourth of July) it was posted 05-07-2005, 03:37 AM (May 07). Although I don’t believe there was any intent of continuing the argument about North American Indians, Tories, or Patriots I propose we look at these subjects deeper and discuss it from another perspective – one of rational not righteousness, and truth not emotion.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the role of the North American Indian and the Tory in the War for Independence. Like any of the Crown of England’s subjects living amongst the immigrant European population east of the Ohio River the Indian and the Tory chose their future with their loyalty or commitment to conscientious objection to the war. Some chose better than others. Today a large number of the surviving original English and Scots Irish settler families of the colonies not only have the blood of Indians on their hands (historically) but in their loins (genealogically) as well. Likewise, a growing number of Americans are discovering their lineages contain the Tory story too. I’ll separate these conversations over the next two posts.

/R

Stephen
Washington, DC

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Here are some interesting ideas to pursue in conversation about the early British Colonist and American Citizens. There are studies that indicate that the Northern European gene pool is limited and interesting (Celt/Germanic). Likewise there also is evidence that the gene pools of the Atlantic Maritime Islands and New England stemming from the earliest introduction of Europeans are limited and interesting (Celt/Germanic/Indian).

Indians living on the Atlantic Seaboard of Eastern Canada and the United States share many common ancestors with the Celtic/Germanic peoples of the British Isles – and did long before Bjarni Herjolfsson, Leaf Erikson, Erik the Red, St. Brendan, or any Basque fishermen, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, and/or Phonecians/Carthaginians ever adventured to the Americas.

Long before the Cherokee, Algonquin, and Iraquois inhabited the areas east of the Appalachian Mountains and west of the Atlantic Ocean there existed a great people that the Cherokee best describe as resembling Celtic peoples. The Iraquois explain that these people arrived on boats hundreds of years earlier from the Atlantic Ocean. It is important to note that the Cherokee, Algonquin, and Iraquois people did not inhabit the regions east of the Appalachians until after Columbus arrived and these Celtic peoples had perished from a plague like disease that was introduced by the Spanish explorers. Those that survived were absorbed by the Cherokee Nation, the Algonquin Confederation, and the Iroquois Nation or captured and sold into slavery by the Spanish. The existence of these Celts in the Americas might certainly explain the many Celtic, Hebrew, and Roman artifacts and coins found over the last few centuries in archeological digs within North America.

/R

Stephen
Washington, DC

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Here are some interesting ideas to pursue in conversation about the American Tory. First off, the term Tory is used different ways by the English speaker over different centuries. It never quite means the same thing from one group of people to the next and from time to time. In the way it was used by people in the colonies during the American War of Independence it NEVER EVER referred to a loyal British subject. At first it was used to designate individuals that subscribed to conscientious objection. Later its’ reference was purely aimed at persons who did not offer and/or refused any assistance to combatant elements. Later still its’ meaning was extended to include anyone who did not offer and/or refused any assistance to non-combatant and refugee elements displaced by war. In New Jersey this caused an enormous amount of animosity between neighboring families and neighboring towns. The result of this animosity led to tar and feather, and lynch mobs. Property was confiscated and homes were burned. Families were driven out the towns, out of the counties, and out of the country. Interestingly enough Loyalist militiamen and Colonial soldiers alike sometimes returned home to discover the house in ashes and the family dead or in exile.

/R

Stephen
Washington, DC

[Peggy]

Hi Stephen,

Think you skipped a couple of pages; there were other replies to "Why." Or perhaps your computer has managed to sort them by the US version of the dates? The first post was on 17-11-04, which is the 17th of Nov, not the 11th day of a 17th month. :D The "Independence Day" one was from 5-07-2005, the 5th of July, perhaps still the 4th in the poster's time zone. I've never figured out why we (Americans) write dates in a way that can cause such confusion, or switch our forks to the right hand. Just being contrary, I guess.

As for "Tories," I beg to differ. Early accounts tell of the capture of my NY ancestor by "Tories." He was taken to Canada and held as a British prisoner. His captors were NOT conscientious objectors, or people "refusing assistance." Whatever it meant over in Jersey. . . . :)

Cheers,

Peggy

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Peggy, Thanks for the engaging reply! Also, thanks for the guidance concerning the dates. Will put it to use another time. Meanwhile, let's talk "Tory". I'm not from New Jersey. I not from New York. I'm not from Conneticutt. However, I have read many accounts of Tories from those states at the Online Institue of Advanced Loyalists Studies and the many associated links. I came away thinking they present the reader with a pretty good idea that a Tory by any other name was NOT a Tory (Especially before December of 1776) depending upon circumstances and where you were located. Also, there are definetly distincions between Tories, Loyalists, and Royalists - subtle albeit but still distintive.

In New Jersey supporters of the cause of freedom not necessarily willing to ratify or accept the Constitution of 1776 (Which was not the same Constitution we enjoy today) as writen were disdainfully referred to as Tories. These men were by no means supporters of the Crown and certainly not Loyalists, but they may have ended up living in Canada all the same becaues they expressed a different opinion to the the Constitution of 1776.

Below is an interesting account of what some people thought of Tories.

"Female Ancestors Heddon to Livingston, 1777

New Ark July 9th 1777

Sir

The Commissioners are much Impeaded in their Business on Account of the Tory Women that remain with us; they Secret the goods & conceal every thing they possibly can from them, which gives them a great deal of Trouble, hear is one James O’BRIEN & his Wife that have been great plunderers & Concealers of goods, & when Called in for any thing, they petition to have Leave to go among Christians, & not be detain’d among Brutes as they call us in this Town, — pray make an order to send them to their Christian Friends, meaning our Enemies.

A List of Ladies Whose Husbands are with the Enemy — Mary KINGSLAND, Mary STAGER, Filia RIKER, Froutis INTEREST, Sarah GARRABRANT, Mary GREENFIELD, Elizabeth HOWET, Martha HICKS, Mihitable HOUDINOT, Libtta VAN RIPER, Susana WICKS, Aulta VAN RIPER, Mary GARRABRANT, Jane DRUMMOND, Sarah SAYRES, Lydia SAYRES, Margaret NICHOLS, Elizabeth BROWN, Sarah CRAWFORT, & Abigail WARD. by sending the above Women after their Husbands, will be an Advantage to the State, and save the Committion a Great deal of Trouble.

I am Sr. Your most Obedt. Huml.
Servt.
Jos: Hedden Junr.

[To William Livingston]

New Jersey Archives, William Livingston Papers (unpublished), Reel 5, Page 855."

/R

Stephen
Washington, DC

[peter nicholl]

Indians living on the Atlantic Seaboard of Eastern Canada and the United States share many common ancestors with the Celtic/Germanic peoples of the British Isles – and did long before Bjarni Herjolfsson, Leaf Erikson, Erik the Red, St. Brendan, or any Basque fishermen, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, and/or Phonecians/Carthaginians ever adventured to the Americas.

Long before the Cherokee, Algonquin, and Iraquois inhabited the areas east of the Appalachian Mountains and west of the Atlantic Ocean there existed a great people that the Cherokee best describe as resembling Celtic peoples.
The existence of these Celts in the Americas might certainly explain the many Celtic, Hebrew, and Roman artifacts and coins found over the last few centuries in archeological digs within North America.

/R

Stephen
Washington, DCInteresting, has any research been done on the logistics of their arrival and the demographics of these people with a view to proposing a Minimum Viable Population for them?
Peter

[Peggy]

Stephen, how ever did you manage to fit so much text in a post? :)

From a PBS web page on the Revolution: "Tories - the name given to those in England who strongly supported the views of King George III and Parliament. Eventually the people in the colonies who remained loyal to the king and Parliament were also called Tories. According to the New York Packet, January 18, 1776, the name Tory was first given to Irish robbers or highwaymen who were always plundering and looking for villainous acts to do. If this is true, then the word originally meant those who plunder."

In Wikpedia it says that the term originates from the English Civil War era, when it was used to describe Irish guerrilla fighters. Many later turned to banditry. It comes from the Irish term tóraidhe, modern Irish tóraí — outlaw, robber.

Peggy

[Peggy]

Stephen wrote: Indians living on the Atlantic Seaboard of Eastern Canada and the United States share many common ancestors with the Celtic/Germanic peoples of the British Isles. . . .

Is this based upon DNA testing?

Peggy

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Peter, it is very interesting! There has been a lot of research done over the last several hundred years. Much of which is either becoming available for the first time or is available now again after many years of hiding the information from view. What is known and accepted is the fact that the British Isles have moved time and again in their position along the Atlantic Ridge. They are hundreds of miles further north and east now than they were before the last Ice Age. The submerged landmass known to geologist as Avalon which forms the northern portion of the Continental Shelf off the coast of New England once danced along with the other British Isles for position amongst the British Isles. The British Isles are not one land mass divided by water and do not connect to the continent of Europe. Scotland is actually an entirely separate landmass than the rest of the Isles. Members of the Iroquois Nation have kept history that they came ashore in boats on the coasts of New England and Eastern Canadian thousands of years ago when their land submerged beneath the Atlantic Ocean.

/R

Stephen

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Peggy,
I can not point you to a particular study but I can direct you to look/browse for any genetic research conducted on the DNA of the Clovis people of North America and the Solutrean people of France and Spain. These people developed from a common group of European Caucasians known as haplogroup X tens of thousands of years ago. The Iriquois, Cherokee, Dakota peoples all have history that record their origins on islands in the Atlantic Ocean.

/R

Stephen

[Stephen M. Kohler]

Peggy,
So many words. Such little time. It's in my roots!

/R

Stephen