What do you think?
Rate this book
Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War
From historian Thomas B. Allen, author of Remember Pearl Harbor and George Washington, Spy Master comes a sweeping, dramatic history of the Americans who fought alongside the British on the losing side of the American Revolution. Allen’s compelling account comprises an epic story with a personal core, an American narrative certain to spellbind readers of Tom Fleming, David McCullough, and Joseph Ellis. The first book in over thirty years on this topic in Revolution War history, Tories incorporates new research and previously unavailable material drawn from foreign archives, telling the riveting story of bitter internecine conflict during the tumultuous birth of a nation.
499 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 22, 2010
66 people are currently reading
788 people want to read
About the author
Thomas B. Allen
68 books25 followersThomas B. Allen's writings range from articles for National Geographic Magazine to books on espionage and military history.
He is the father of Roger MacBride Allen.
He is the father of Roger MacBride Allen.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
July 5, 2019
"The [American and French Revolutions] are usually seen as diverging sharply. The Americans founded an enduring constitutional settlement on the separation of powers and the checks and balances of a federal system. The French plunged into any abyss of blood and fire, to emerge under the thumb of a military dictator crowned as emperor. The story, of course, is not actually that simple. France's decade of revolutionary strife was easily matched by the years of warfare in North America between the mid-1770s and mid-1780s. Of the colonies' 2.5 million inhabitants, one in every twenty-five fled abroad, far exceeding the proportion that left France...A third of the adult male population of the colonies were in arms, and many of those were in semi-official militias, or simple armed bands, that preyed on civilian populations for years at a time..."
- David Andress, The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France
“Tell me, which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away, or by 3,000 tyrants not one mile away?”
- Reverend Mather Byles, Loyalist Clergyman
Every summer, around the Fourth of July (and obviously spurred by its arrival), I make a pact with myself to read more about the American Revolution. Every summer, I collect some books to read. And every summer, I get distracted by the fireworks, the drinking, the bratwursts, the drinking, other books that are not about the American Revolution, and the drinking. Pretty soon it’s October and I’m doing my yearly trip down Stephen King’s back catalogue.
This year, though, I made an honest, relatively sober effort to make a dent in my War of Independence pile.
The first volume I chose was Nathaniel Philbrick’s Bunker Hill, which focuses on Boston’s role in the Revolution, climaxing with the titular battle. One of the interesting things about Philbrick’s interpretation is the way he presents the “Patriots.” Typically, these are the heroes of any American-centric book on the Revolution. Philbrick gives them more than a little shading, at times describing them a violent ruffians, hooligans, and thugs. It’s a conclusion he draws from the available evidence. It is well established, for instance, that certain Patriots enjoyed tarring-and-feathering their opponents. Usually this is presented as righteousness, or even with some levity, like, hey, these guys poured hot tar on someone, then covered them with feathers, ha ha ha. Philbrick, on the other hand, sees it a bit differently, more along the lines of they poured hot tar on people and then covered them in feathers.
Philbrick’s refusal to whitewash the Revolutionary experience spurred me on to Thomas Allen’s Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War. I wanted to know more about the Loyalists, those folks who were getting tarred-and-feathered, or beaten by mobs, or who lost their homes, their property, sometimes their lives, fighting not against a distant enemy, but against friends, neighbors, sometimes their own family. The American Revolution, after all, was not simply a war between distant Great Britain and the newly “Free and Independent States,” it was a war between Englishmen and their descendents. Between people who were very much alike.
This is not, by any means, a contrarian’s history. By placing Tories at the fore of the narrative, Allen implicitly gives them his sympathy. However, at no point does he attempt to reconsider the justness of the Patriot cause. He doesn’t really attempt to do anything, other than share a bunch of Tory stories, some of them familiar, some of them unknown. At times, Tories felt like a very familiar jaunt down the Revolutionary timeline. That makes this an interesting book, if far from a great one.
For the most part, the material is presented chronologically, with some subjects – the war in the South, attacks by Tory Indians – given their own thematic chapters. Allen begins with the early discontent in Massachusetts in 1769, and ends around the time of the surrender of Yorktown. That’s a lot of ground to cover, and since Tories is only 333 pages of text (in my trade paperback edition), this is not a real deep dive.
There is some decent material here. Allen has clearly done a great deal of research unearthing the stories of people who are generally forgotten in the telling of this tale. He tells, for instance, of Jolley Allen, a Boston merchant with six living children (out of 17 live births) who had prospered in the colonies. After George Washington surrounded Boston with Henry Knox’s Ticonderoga artillery, General Howe bargained for an evacuation in return for not burning the city. Jolley hired a private sloop, captained by a man who’d never been to sea, to spirit him to safety. The sloop ran aground in Provincetown, Jolley was arrested and his goods were ransacked. Eventually, he made his way back to Boston where he found his barber living in his home. Jolley later escaped the colonies and made his way to London. Jolley’s story is instructive, because something in the neighborhood of 80,000 Tories fled the colonies during and after the Revolution, six times more people than fled Revolutionary France. Putting a face, a name, some details to this flight helps you to understand the enormity of this exodus.
Examples like this make Tories worthwhile. Indeed, some of the events are so inherently interesting, it’s impossible to go wrong reading about them. Any book that features the fascinatingly complex Benedict Arnold – fearsome warrior, callous traitor – starts from a high floor. And yet, I often got the sense that this story has been better told elsewhere. The chapters on Tory Indians and the raids on the New York frontier are rather cursory, and add nothing new, either in terms of research or literary verve. There are many other, better books that cover this area.
Allen’s writing is serviceable, but often suffers from a lack of flow and cohesion. At certain points, the narrative felt uneven and ragged. There were times when one paragraph would end and the next would just wander off like a small child at the mall. The final chapter is almost jarringly brief. It talks broadly about thousands of people having to leave for distant shores – places most of them had never been, including thousands of ex-slaves who’d fought for Britain – but without any detail or insight. To me, this is really the heart of the matter; for Allen, it’s a fleeting endnote.
I also think Tories could have used a little editorializing. A little attitude. Not early-years Bart Simpson, mind you. I’m not asking for a Molotov cocktail to be hurled into the citadel of received wisdom. Still, just a tiny bit of commentary might have given Tories the punch it lacks. Allen does fine telling you what happened; he mostly ignores what it meant. There is substance here to reframe or at least readjust our interpretation of this period. Allen does not go that extra step.
The Revolutionary story I received growing up made it seem very clean and fine and morally simple. The Patriots had a just cause, they staked their lives to it, and somehow, they prevailed against all expectation. The reality was messier. That makes sense, since revolutions are messy business. Sure, the American variety didn't have French guillotines or Russian assassination squads, but it had its costs. Lives were lost and lives were ruined and that’s an important part of this saga, which tends to get overshadowed by the oratory of Patrick Henry, the writing of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and the towering figure of Washington as he crosses the Delaware.
The American Revolution made some rich, others powerful, turned a few into legends. Others had to settle for a new home in lovely Nova Scotia. Those experiences mattered, too.
- David Andress, The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France
“Tell me, which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away, or by 3,000 tyrants not one mile away?”
- Reverend Mather Byles, Loyalist Clergyman
Every summer, around the Fourth of July (and obviously spurred by its arrival), I make a pact with myself to read more about the American Revolution. Every summer, I collect some books to read. And every summer, I get distracted by the fireworks, the drinking, the bratwursts, the drinking, other books that are not about the American Revolution, and the drinking. Pretty soon it’s October and I’m doing my yearly trip down Stephen King’s back catalogue.
This year, though, I made an honest, relatively sober effort to make a dent in my War of Independence pile.
The first volume I chose was Nathaniel Philbrick’s Bunker Hill, which focuses on Boston’s role in the Revolution, climaxing with the titular battle. One of the interesting things about Philbrick’s interpretation is the way he presents the “Patriots.” Typically, these are the heroes of any American-centric book on the Revolution. Philbrick gives them more than a little shading, at times describing them a violent ruffians, hooligans, and thugs. It’s a conclusion he draws from the available evidence. It is well established, for instance, that certain Patriots enjoyed tarring-and-feathering their opponents. Usually this is presented as righteousness, or even with some levity, like, hey, these guys poured hot tar on someone, then covered them with feathers, ha ha ha. Philbrick, on the other hand, sees it a bit differently, more along the lines of they poured hot tar on people and then covered them in feathers.
Philbrick’s refusal to whitewash the Revolutionary experience spurred me on to Thomas Allen’s Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War. I wanted to know more about the Loyalists, those folks who were getting tarred-and-feathered, or beaten by mobs, or who lost their homes, their property, sometimes their lives, fighting not against a distant enemy, but against friends, neighbors, sometimes their own family. The American Revolution, after all, was not simply a war between distant Great Britain and the newly “Free and Independent States,” it was a war between Englishmen and their descendents. Between people who were very much alike.
This is not, by any means, a contrarian’s history. By placing Tories at the fore of the narrative, Allen implicitly gives them his sympathy. However, at no point does he attempt to reconsider the justness of the Patriot cause. He doesn’t really attempt to do anything, other than share a bunch of Tory stories, some of them familiar, some of them unknown. At times, Tories felt like a very familiar jaunt down the Revolutionary timeline. That makes this an interesting book, if far from a great one.
For the most part, the material is presented chronologically, with some subjects – the war in the South, attacks by Tory Indians – given their own thematic chapters. Allen begins with the early discontent in Massachusetts in 1769, and ends around the time of the surrender of Yorktown. That’s a lot of ground to cover, and since Tories is only 333 pages of text (in my trade paperback edition), this is not a real deep dive.
There is some decent material here. Allen has clearly done a great deal of research unearthing the stories of people who are generally forgotten in the telling of this tale. He tells, for instance, of Jolley Allen, a Boston merchant with six living children (out of 17 live births) who had prospered in the colonies. After George Washington surrounded Boston with Henry Knox’s Ticonderoga artillery, General Howe bargained for an evacuation in return for not burning the city. Jolley hired a private sloop, captained by a man who’d never been to sea, to spirit him to safety. The sloop ran aground in Provincetown, Jolley was arrested and his goods were ransacked. Eventually, he made his way back to Boston where he found his barber living in his home. Jolley later escaped the colonies and made his way to London. Jolley’s story is instructive, because something in the neighborhood of 80,000 Tories fled the colonies during and after the Revolution, six times more people than fled Revolutionary France. Putting a face, a name, some details to this flight helps you to understand the enormity of this exodus.
Examples like this make Tories worthwhile. Indeed, some of the events are so inherently interesting, it’s impossible to go wrong reading about them. Any book that features the fascinatingly complex Benedict Arnold – fearsome warrior, callous traitor – starts from a high floor. And yet, I often got the sense that this story has been better told elsewhere. The chapters on Tory Indians and the raids on the New York frontier are rather cursory, and add nothing new, either in terms of research or literary verve. There are many other, better books that cover this area.
Allen’s writing is serviceable, but often suffers from a lack of flow and cohesion. At certain points, the narrative felt uneven and ragged. There were times when one paragraph would end and the next would just wander off like a small child at the mall. The final chapter is almost jarringly brief. It talks broadly about thousands of people having to leave for distant shores – places most of them had never been, including thousands of ex-slaves who’d fought for Britain – but without any detail or insight. To me, this is really the heart of the matter; for Allen, it’s a fleeting endnote.
I also think Tories could have used a little editorializing. A little attitude. Not early-years Bart Simpson, mind you. I’m not asking for a Molotov cocktail to be hurled into the citadel of received wisdom. Still, just a tiny bit of commentary might have given Tories the punch it lacks. Allen does fine telling you what happened; he mostly ignores what it meant. There is substance here to reframe or at least readjust our interpretation of this period. Allen does not go that extra step.
The Revolutionary story I received growing up made it seem very clean and fine and morally simple. The Patriots had a just cause, they staked their lives to it, and somehow, they prevailed against all expectation. The reality was messier. That makes sense, since revolutions are messy business. Sure, the American variety didn't have French guillotines or Russian assassination squads, but it had its costs. Lives were lost and lives were ruined and that’s an important part of this saga, which tends to get overshadowed by the oratory of Patrick Henry, the writing of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and the towering figure of Washington as he crosses the Delaware.
The American Revolution made some rich, others powerful, turned a few into legends. Others had to settle for a new home in lovely Nova Scotia. Those experiences mattered, too.
July 16, 2014
My interest in this topic was from a wargame titled “Washington's War”. In that game political control of the colonies shifts based on how you use your resources and the game lets you place your control marker into various territories within each colony. Additionally, there are specific rules in which American Generals can convert spaces controlled by the British and those in which British armies can sway spaces controlled by the Americans. When I did more research on the forums for strategies the game designer was posting there and justified a few of his rules (when somebody had an issue with it) as being historically based.
So that got me thinking as to whether the colonies were more split in their allegiances than taught in my History classes. After I recalled a teacher in junior high telling me the American Civil War was only fought to “free the slaves” I decided that it was likely that some of my teachers didn't get it entirely right.
From what I recall most of my teachers taught that the Tories were a small nuisance at best or the topic wasn't covered too much leaving it to historically flawed movies like THE PATRIOT to show certain minority figures joining the British.
So one day I'm at the library and itching for something historically engaging and I see this colorful cover simply titled “Tories” and explaining that it will show Tories and colonials who could swing either way was a larger number than expected.
Allen's book is good but gets caught up in particular trees over the forest in which you step away from the American Revolution and put a particular historical person under a microscope. This was interesting at first but it's rampant in the book and was a mixed experience for me.
Anyway, it's still a worthy book to read if the subject interests you and here are some of the pieces that caught my interest.
Interesting that we call it a Revolutionary War yet people who lived through it referred to it more as a civil war between neighbors, a la Tories and Whigs. We recall Washington with his soldiers suffering at Valley Forge yet 20 miles or so the British were occupying Philadelphia being well housed and well fed because of Tory sympathizers. The more I read this the more I wonder if I got the propaganda side of the American Revolution. In college I had a professor who preferred to wrap the Founding Fathers in a mythological flag yet avoided the truth even when it stared him in the face with the pistol cocked.
By some accounts 80,00 Tories left the country (that's six times the number of people who fled France during the French Revolution); some numbers are higher as in well over 100,000 and the author admits we will never have an exact figure.
3500 black Tory ex-slaves fought for the British and were sent to Nova Scotia after the war but did not fit in so they sailed to Africa and created a new country, Sierra Leone.
Estimated numbers of Tories are hard to know especially with allegiances changing among some colonials. Estimates put the Tories at 16 to 20% of the colonial population with a higher percentage towards white males. Note that at the time of the number of colonials was roughly 2.2M to 2.7M so that would mean 440,000 to roughly 556,000 Tories.
Allen estimates that the numbers might be even higher as there were some colonials who didn't strongly support either side and drifted to whichever side had the most power and/or was in control of their territory.
It is believed roughly 100,000 Americans fled to Canada after the war or further out. Today about one fifth of the Canadian populace claim Tory ancestry.
Over 100 pages of footnotes and references are included in this book.
Author tracked down the legacy of Loyalists accessing scattered records all over the world, including Canada, Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That doesn't include letters, diaries and other documents collected by Americans nor the normal routes of research such as the Library of Congress.
INDIVIDUAL TALES:
Stephen Maples Jarvis: to defy his father and impress his lover he joined the Rebel's Conn. militia; his father threw him out of the house b/c he was a Tory; ironically they were commanded by his mother's brother, a Rebel. He changed allegiances to the Tories which made his father happy and served with him. After the war he and his wife encountered borderline violent mobs (he calmed them down) they made plans to leave and live in Canada because they feared for their lives.
A shoemaker kept screaming for King George towards a colonial general and aids. Said shoemaker followed them as they left and the general ordered that he be dunked in the river. Meanwhile, the daughters and wife of the shoemaker urged him to be quiet. He would not. Shoemaker kept hurrahing for King George and finally the general ordered he be tarred and feathered. Amazingly, he kept cheering for King George and was told to leave town and bother them no more or he would be shot. The shoemaker finally shut up and left town while it was occupied by the colonists.
---- from the dictated diary of Hugh McDonald, 15 year old soldier in the Continental Army
Theophilius Lillie was a Loyalist who stated it was better to be ruled by a king than a mob the latter which would sometimes punish people it disliked or seek revenge.
Dr. Benjamin Church, who was a notable citizen of Boston who wrote Patriot prose and poetry yet in actuality was a Tory spy for General Gage being something of a mole agent. He did considerable damage to the Rebels but was eventually caught, tried and convicted. Some believe he did it because he was deeply in debt. Church's family was given a pension by the British government.
Thomas Jeremiah, a free black man, who was heard to say that if British warships sailed into the Charleston harbor he would guide them. Patriots arrested him in a mockery of a trial and had him hanged and then burned for insurrection. Governor Campbell tried to intervene but was told that if he pardoned the man “they would hang him at my door.”
Thomas “Burnfoot” Burntree: who had his skull partially cracked then partially scalped, then his legs tarred and two of his toes were removed (the latter being revenge for shooting a Rebel ringleader in the foot). Seething for revenge Thomas became an avid supporter of the Tories and led a number of Loyalists into Georgia and Florida and allied himself nicely with Creek Indians in the hopes that they would help with the Rebels. After the war he was exiled to Florida and then later (because Florida went from British to Spanish control) to the Bahamas.
Brigadier General Andrew Williamson: who started as a Patriot and then tried to convince his people to join the Tories when Charleston fell. He was almost caught and killed one time by the Rebels but escaped. At the end of the war it was revealed he had been a spy for the Americans but several of his contemporaries still bitterly mistrusted his motives.
Major Patrick Ferguson: who was considered humane by the standards of the time. Legends say he had the chance to shoot an American officer in the back but chose not to do so and a doctor told him it had been Washington. Ferguson was vilified by the Americans and his body was torn apart at the Battle of King's Mountain.
Allen states that in time the Canadian Tories and the American Patriots would make peace over the generations and change the History of the times from a civil war to one of American Revolution in which the colonials fought the British. Somewhere bits and pieces of the truth would be replaced by a mythology to build up the new country.
April 6, 2018
While this book is about our Revolutionary War it is not about the history that we all have at least a passing knowledge of. What the author makes clear is that our revolution was a civil war, our first with the second to come in the next century. This first civil war was fought on two fields the first being the one we were taught about in school with all its big battles fought by the famous and infamous founders of our nation. While the events of that part of the war are mentioned their references are made primarily in passing and secondary to the story the author really wants us to understand. This book and the author's purpose is to introduce us to that part of this civil war that savagely divided neighbors and families in a way that was far worse than what would occur in the 1860's. This is the kind of history that has impact on a reader.
While I have a particular attachment to the history of our country's founding I have been dulled by the near devotional descriptions of historians covering this period. Yes, our Founders accomplished incredible things under the most arduous of circumstances. I understand and appreciate that and my understanding and appreciation grows as I continue to read about the events of their nation building. However, the conditions they had to operate under were, indeed, awful and these men were in fact human beings and not saints so there had to be a more human side to the story and that is the history I really enjoy finding and reading. This book is one of those histories. It is not about the great men but about the people that had to live through the events of the Revolution and try to survive it. The telling of their story gives the reader a very accurate idea of what life was like for the average person living in 18th century America and it wasn't pretty or glamorous.
Imagine if you can the government and the stability it had always afforded you is suddenly overthrown by what we can only liken in our understanding to an 18th century street gang. Further, all forms of law enforcement is replaced sporadically by self-appointed "committees of safety" or similarly titled entities. You and your family are adjudged friend or foe by these committees and are either safe or subject to having your property invaded, confiscated, and or looted. This was life during the revolution and to make it more interesting the nature of these committees changed as the place you lived fell under the control of one side or the other. Today it might be safe to support the king but next week only those loyal to the rebellion were safe. Is it any surprise that the leaders of both sides were disappointed in the wavering nature of the populace? Then the author describes the extra-judicial brutality of the roving bands of civilians that hunted the opposing civilian members and executed them for treason either to the king or to their state depending on which band it was. Life of this nature was chaos and changing sides was an everyday occurrence at every level including the upper ranks of the Continental military. It appears that Benedict Arnold was hardly alone in his treachery it was just that he was the most well known and accomplished of those that decided the Cause was hopeless.
Anybody that enjoys the history of our Revolution should read this book as it adds a dimension that most histories do not even hint at. One thing it certainly does add to is why the Founders were so concerned and afraid of "the Mob". While the death and destruction caused by the major battles and combatants was significant the death and destruction caused by the mob actions by both the loyalist and the patriot civilians was worse. The divisions between loyalists and patriots divided communities, friendships, marriages, and families and did so with uninhibited violence. These divisions also destroyed the institutions of local government needed to maintain stability and civility. As a consequence anarchy was the rule of the day and violence and revenge the arbiter of justice. A very compelling history.
While I have a particular attachment to the history of our country's founding I have been dulled by the near devotional descriptions of historians covering this period. Yes, our Founders accomplished incredible things under the most arduous of circumstances. I understand and appreciate that and my understanding and appreciation grows as I continue to read about the events of their nation building. However, the conditions they had to operate under were, indeed, awful and these men were in fact human beings and not saints so there had to be a more human side to the story and that is the history I really enjoy finding and reading. This book is one of those histories. It is not about the great men but about the people that had to live through the events of the Revolution and try to survive it. The telling of their story gives the reader a very accurate idea of what life was like for the average person living in 18th century America and it wasn't pretty or glamorous.
Imagine if you can the government and the stability it had always afforded you is suddenly overthrown by what we can only liken in our understanding to an 18th century street gang. Further, all forms of law enforcement is replaced sporadically by self-appointed "committees of safety" or similarly titled entities. You and your family are adjudged friend or foe by these committees and are either safe or subject to having your property invaded, confiscated, and or looted. This was life during the revolution and to make it more interesting the nature of these committees changed as the place you lived fell under the control of one side or the other. Today it might be safe to support the king but next week only those loyal to the rebellion were safe. Is it any surprise that the leaders of both sides were disappointed in the wavering nature of the populace? Then the author describes the extra-judicial brutality of the roving bands of civilians that hunted the opposing civilian members and executed them for treason either to the king or to their state depending on which band it was. Life of this nature was chaos and changing sides was an everyday occurrence at every level including the upper ranks of the Continental military. It appears that Benedict Arnold was hardly alone in his treachery it was just that he was the most well known and accomplished of those that decided the Cause was hopeless.
Anybody that enjoys the history of our Revolution should read this book as it adds a dimension that most histories do not even hint at. One thing it certainly does add to is why the Founders were so concerned and afraid of "the Mob". While the death and destruction caused by the major battles and combatants was significant the death and destruction caused by the mob actions by both the loyalist and the patriot civilians was worse. The divisions between loyalists and patriots divided communities, friendships, marriages, and families and did so with uninhibited violence. These divisions also destroyed the institutions of local government needed to maintain stability and civility. As a consequence anarchy was the rule of the day and violence and revenge the arbiter of justice. A very compelling history.
May 22, 2011
To be honest...I probably would have been a Tory. I know myself well enough to know that I am afraid enough of change to have followed the Rebels to found a new country.
When I read the blurb about this book, I knew I had to read it, and I was not disappointed.
Allen is able to recreate the Revolutionary war, so we can see it in new light: that of a civil war. As Allen says, Americans "would call the Revolution a war between Americans and the British, losing from their collective memory the fact that much of the fighting had been between Americans and Americans." I had never heard much about the Tories, nor cared much about their plight, but this book changed all of that.
For many Americans, remaining loyal to the king was as patriotic as rebelling was for others. They felt it was part of their duty to serve the king and to help stop the rebels in their cause. These Loyalists (as they called themselves) attached themselves to British units and did what they could to support the British army.
Allen brings out the brutality of the war between both sides and is able to keep a neutral position between both. In other words, he admits that both sides did atrocious things to each other.
Allen's writing is fast paced and interesting. He includes numerous stories that help the reader wonder about the character of justice in the 1770s and 80s. Ultimately the decision of right and wrong belong to the reader.
Allen needs to be commended for bring to light a hidden part of American history. I feel that most people would benefit from reading this book.
When I read the blurb about this book, I knew I had to read it, and I was not disappointed.
Allen is able to recreate the Revolutionary war, so we can see it in new light: that of a civil war. As Allen says, Americans "would call the Revolution a war between Americans and the British, losing from their collective memory the fact that much of the fighting had been between Americans and Americans." I had never heard much about the Tories, nor cared much about their plight, but this book changed all of that.
For many Americans, remaining loyal to the king was as patriotic as rebelling was for others. They felt it was part of their duty to serve the king and to help stop the rebels in their cause. These Loyalists (as they called themselves) attached themselves to British units and did what they could to support the British army.
Allen brings out the brutality of the war between both sides and is able to keep a neutral position between both. In other words, he admits that both sides did atrocious things to each other.
Allen's writing is fast paced and interesting. He includes numerous stories that help the reader wonder about the character of justice in the 1770s and 80s. Ultimately the decision of right and wrong belong to the reader.
Allen needs to be commended for bring to light a hidden part of American history. I feel that most people would benefit from reading this book.
September 8, 2017
Thomas B. Allen presents the stories of everyday people who stayed loyal to the King during the American Revolution. Well known events and people are covered, but the “not famous” are center stage. The stories are arranged topically with a loose chronology.
Allen presents his research (and that of family and friends- see the Acknowledgements) to describe loyalists (different from those whose careers depended on Great Britain) and what they contributed to their cause. For some Patriots this was a war against Great Britain, for many Patriots and Loyalists, it was a civil war.
There was good coverage of Bunker Hill, the Canadian strategies, British abandonment of Boston (Jolley Allen and Clean Brush - their stories as good as the names). I would have liked a similar treatment of the British exodus from Philadelphia and Patriots leaving New York City. I was not aware of the role of the Presbyterians nor how their churches were desecrated when the Loyalists took over nor how the British Generals gave a wink and a nod as their Indian supporters scalped suspected patriots alive.
While you expect to read about atrocities in a book about a war, the last chapters on the Loyalist raiders were disturbingly bloody. The cruelty was overwhelming. Did the British really infect their black soldiers with smallpox and send them to the Patriots? Just as you are wondering how the colonists will survive this loss of life and property, there is an abrupt end when you turn a page and Cornwallis surrenders.
There are no maps nor any graphics (drawings, plates, photos). The index was not helpful when I went to check back about the Acadians (did Allen say a Patriot expelled some?) or for a reference to Aaron Burr that I was sure was there.
Allen touches on the how the Loyalists dispersed after the war. For more on this, I highly recommend Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World which is a de facto sequel to this book.
Like any first cut of a big topic, the book has weaknesses. Allen does not tie the events together or give an overall view or analysis. I expect this book will serve as a guide to others who will keep digging.
Allen presents his research (and that of family and friends- see the Acknowledgements) to describe loyalists (different from those whose careers depended on Great Britain) and what they contributed to their cause. For some Patriots this was a war against Great Britain, for many Patriots and Loyalists, it was a civil war.
There was good coverage of Bunker Hill, the Canadian strategies, British abandonment of Boston (Jolley Allen and Clean Brush - their stories as good as the names). I would have liked a similar treatment of the British exodus from Philadelphia and Patriots leaving New York City. I was not aware of the role of the Presbyterians nor how their churches were desecrated when the Loyalists took over nor how the British Generals gave a wink and a nod as their Indian supporters scalped suspected patriots alive.
While you expect to read about atrocities in a book about a war, the last chapters on the Loyalist raiders were disturbingly bloody. The cruelty was overwhelming. Did the British really infect their black soldiers with smallpox and send them to the Patriots? Just as you are wondering how the colonists will survive this loss of life and property, there is an abrupt end when you turn a page and Cornwallis surrenders.
There are no maps nor any graphics (drawings, plates, photos). The index was not helpful when I went to check back about the Acadians (did Allen say a Patriot expelled some?) or for a reference to Aaron Burr that I was sure was there.
Allen touches on the how the Loyalists dispersed after the war. For more on this, I highly recommend Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World which is a de facto sequel to this book.
Like any first cut of a big topic, the book has weaknesses. Allen does not tie the events together or give an overall view or analysis. I expect this book will serve as a guide to others who will keep digging.
February 20, 2013
What a horrible time the Revolutionary War was. Allen makes the point that it was as much a civil war as a fight against the British. Loyalists generally saw themselves as British, and believed it was their duty to support their King. The British engaged Loyalists, Indians, slaves, Hessian mercenaries and anyone else they could find to quell the rebellion. Both sides engaged in treachery, murder, looting, atrocities. Our country's white population at the time of the Revolution was approx. 2.5M - it was estimated that about 20% were Loyalists - about 500,000. No estimate is given for the number of native Americans and African Americans who were involved. But it's clear that most of the fighting was among Americans. The Loyalists were an expedient source of manpower for the British, but were regarded as second class citizens. After the war, 100,000 Tories fled to Canada - today about 20% of the Canadian population claims Tory ancestry. Others went to the Carribbean, Florida and England. Interestingly, Tories were not treated as 'British' in England. Loyalty to their government really got them a bad deal. What a difficult, confusing time.
I thought the ending was a little simplistic - Allen gives the impression that ALL Tories disappeared after the war. I would like to know more about the ones who stayed here and prospered in the new nation.
I thought the ending was a little simplistic - Allen gives the impression that ALL Tories disappeared after the war. I would like to know more about the ones who stayed here and prospered in the new nation.
April 5, 2011
The first full-length treatment of Loyalism that I've read, "Tories" is a useful if dry book. Its broadest purpose is its only purpose: to report the conflicts between those who rebelled and those who remained loyal to England. That is a little too broad for my liking. There is no real analysis of the motivations and ideologies of Toryism beyond the vaguest notions of mere loyalty to the British crown; we are told in detail what the Tories did, but barely understand why the did it.
So, the book majors on the actual events of history. The narrative is almost duly dry, organized by a weird mix of chronology and topic. If devoid of style, it delivers a fair amount of plain fact- even minor skirmishes are treated in considerable detail- not again, to the proving of a solid thesis, but rather in order to reveal little-known history. The value of this book lies in the originality of information and not much else. I read it as a boring but necessary piece of a wider and more engaging story to be found in conjunction with other, more interesting books.
So, the book majors on the actual events of history. The narrative is almost duly dry, organized by a weird mix of chronology and topic. If devoid of style, it delivers a fair amount of plain fact- even minor skirmishes are treated in considerable detail- not again, to the proving of a solid thesis, but rather in order to reveal little-known history. The value of this book lies in the originality of information and not much else. I read it as a boring but necessary piece of a wider and more engaging story to be found in conjunction with other, more interesting books.
September 23, 2012
This book was great for the perspective it gives to Americans interested in the history of the Revolutionary War. Most of us do not think about the people on the "other side" or the possibility that the war was more of a civil war instead of a revolutionary one. Most of us either don't think about or were not taught growing up that about a third of the American population at the time were Loyalists. And, although it was difficult at times, especially for someone who is very patriotic, reading about some of the dirt on the side of the Patriots. This was a breath of historical fresh air. Mr. Allen does not have a doctorate in history, and there were times in the book when he repeats himself or goes off onto rabbit trails. But, his scholarship and attention to detail with sources shows that this is not just a popular history. Perhaps it will be soon be used in American or Colonial history classes to give a more balanced view of the war and what actually happened with that third group of people.
August 16, 2011
The recent popular history of the American Revolutionary era has largely neglected the role of the Tories – American colonists who remained faithful to the King. Allen’s work is a very well written and engaging attempt to explain the actions and many of the motivations of those who fought to remain loyal to King and nation.
Allen does a fine job of showing how many were forced to choose sides in a conflict they did not want. The frontier lands: the interior of mid Atlantic, New England, the Carolinas faced a level of brutal feuding that at times, had little to nothing to do with the central strategic aims of the war.
Tories avoids going over frequently covered ground in great detail. For instance, he spends little of the text dealing with the Benedict Arnold treason. Instead a lot of the text is devoted to the brutal civil war along the frontier, and in the lines between the Continental Army and the Royal Army.
A fascinating insight is Allen’s showing that the Tory recruitment and participation had little, if any strategic value for the war effort. Of course, the Royal forces, on advice from the Germain government, had little strategic direction, and when they did, often quickly lost interest. The Tories remained a very much underutilized resource, and by 1780, their very existence was as much a recruitment tool for the Patriot cause, as anything else.
Allen’s efforts to show that those who were Tories covered a wide swath of people, from vicious fighters, to folks whose interests just coincided with continued British rule, to slaves and Indians; are an important role that this book accomplishes. The motivations were many. By the end of the conflict, those Tories on the margin of society, the poor and enslaved, who hoped to win freedom by fighting for the King, were perhaps the biggest losers of the conflict.
The roles of the recent immigrants, Anglicans and urban dwellers who made up the profile of typical Tory, became people without a home by the end of the conflict. They did form the backbone of English speaking Canada, but the expulsion and harsh feuding warfare, that often had little to do with the actual strategic aims of the conflict made the Tories a forgettable people to the new Americans and the home country they fought for.
Allen does a fine job of showing how many were forced to choose sides in a conflict they did not want. The frontier lands: the interior of mid Atlantic, New England, the Carolinas faced a level of brutal feuding that at times, had little to nothing to do with the central strategic aims of the war.
Tories avoids going over frequently covered ground in great detail. For instance, he spends little of the text dealing with the Benedict Arnold treason. Instead a lot of the text is devoted to the brutal civil war along the frontier, and in the lines between the Continental Army and the Royal Army.
A fascinating insight is Allen’s showing that the Tory recruitment and participation had little, if any strategic value for the war effort. Of course, the Royal forces, on advice from the Germain government, had little strategic direction, and when they did, often quickly lost interest. The Tories remained a very much underutilized resource, and by 1780, their very existence was as much a recruitment tool for the Patriot cause, as anything else.
Allen’s efforts to show that those who were Tories covered a wide swath of people, from vicious fighters, to folks whose interests just coincided with continued British rule, to slaves and Indians; are an important role that this book accomplishes. The motivations were many. By the end of the conflict, those Tories on the margin of society, the poor and enslaved, who hoped to win freedom by fighting for the King, were perhaps the biggest losers of the conflict.
The roles of the recent immigrants, Anglicans and urban dwellers who made up the profile of typical Tory, became people without a home by the end of the conflict. They did form the backbone of English speaking Canada, but the expulsion and harsh feuding warfare, that often had little to do with the actual strategic aims of the conflict made the Tories a forgettable people to the new Americans and the home country they fought for.
August 19, 2011
What a sad story. The American Revolution seen as a civil war reveals betrayals, hesitations, hatreds, pointless bravery, cowardice rewarded, cruelty, and idealism. Throughout is the maddening uncertainty ruling the people who lived through the war. This book strings together a series of anecdotes into a tapestry of bewilderment and despair in which both Loyalists and Patriots come out at turns despicable and honorable.
August 21, 2019
The grumpus23 (23-word commentary)
Thought I knew everything about this era. Always thought this was US vs. British. Didn't realize this was actually America's first civil war.
Thought I knew everything about this era. Always thought this was US vs. British. Didn't realize this was actually America's first civil war.
December 30, 2014
My expectations might have been at fault here. I was expecting at least part of the book to examine why it was that some people chose Loyalism and why others chose Patriotism, rather than just a narrative history of the Loyalists' political and military activities from the early 1770s through the end of the war. Thomas Hutchinson is frequently mentioned in the early part of the book, but there's no consideration as to why this Loyalist who arguably was more responsible for the outbreak of the war than any other individual would take it as self-evident that his lifetime of service to the people of Massachusetts was a form of service to the British Crown, when so many of his social equals, like John Hancock and Samuel Adams, concluded Massachusetts and the Crown were totally at odds. Timothy Ruggles is a presence throughout the book, but, while it's mentioned on his first appearance that he was president of the Stamp Act Congress, there's no discussion of how this man who presided over the colonies' first extralegal, united act of opposition to Parliament later came to be a high-ranking military leader on the British side during the war. My own favourite Loyalist, William Franklin, doesn't show up until 1780, by which time he's actively part of the British war effort, so there's no discussion of why he and his father Benjamin came to such different conclusions about where their loyalties after war broke out, when they had always been so closely philosophically aligned during previous decades in working to secure the colonies' proper place within the British Empire. Men such as John Dickinson (who abstained from the Continental Congress's vote to declare independence so the Patriots could have their unanimous resolution) and William Samuel Johnson, highly regarded advocates of colonial rights who insisted during the Revolution that the colonies should remain under the Crown but who stuck around after the war to play prominent parts in building the new nation, aren't mentioned at all.
So in sum, a good introduction to the topic for the curious reader, but for anyone with a more in-depth knowledge of the period, probably all it has to offer is anecdotes about individual Loyalists or the savagery of internecine warfare. For the Loyalists' cultural context and their philosophy of the colonies' place within the British Empire, we'd probably instead have to turn to something like Fred Anderson's Crucible of War, even though that's about a wholly different war and only covers up to 1766.
So in sum, a good introduction to the topic for the curious reader, but for anyone with a more in-depth knowledge of the period, probably all it has to offer is anecdotes about individual Loyalists or the savagery of internecine warfare. For the Loyalists' cultural context and their philosophy of the colonies' place within the British Empire, we'd probably instead have to turn to something like Fred Anderson's Crucible of War, even though that's about a wholly different war and only covers up to 1766.
January 6, 2020
As someone who has ancestors among both Patriots and Tories in the American Revolution, I have long been fascinated by the divide between how Tories are nearly entirely forgotten in American history and how they have become a key part of the Canadian identity as the first English-speaking colonists to be there in large quantities. Indeed, the fact that Loyalism is such a major part of Canadian identity suggests that its absence from American historiography comes because Loyalists frequently left the United States as it was in the process of becoming independent and having left, their cultural influence and thus the recognition of the division of the American colonies at the eve and during the process of gaining independence has been neglected. And while I agree with the author that this history is worth recovering, I am not surprised by its neglect. Those who have departed us and whose perspectives cease to present a check to those who remain cease to become important and valued within a given community. And in the case of divisive efforts to gain independence it is all too often best to forget the intense divisions within a society that rebellion cause, lest the memory of who picked what side become the source of lasting violence and hostility.
This book is almost 350 pages long and is divided into eighteen chapters. The book begins with a preface and an introduction that discusses the savage fury of the fight between Loyalists and Patriots. The author begins with a discussion of the period before the outbreak of conflict where Massachusetts society began to divide in the aftermath of the Stamp Act crisis (1), efforts were made to arm the Tories (2), and some Tories felt the need to either fight or flee (3) the coming trouble in the early 1770's. After that the author talks about the aim of the British commanders to subdue the bad elements within American society (4), and engage in the fight for control over Boston (5). The author details American efforts to conquer Canada (6) and the farewell fleet that departed Boston (7). After that there is a discussion of efforts to prepare for the inevitable desire to recover imperial authority on the part of the British (8), the call for Loyalist troops (9), and the beginning of the war in New York (10). There is a discussion of the war of terror fought in the area between New York and Patriot-held upstate New York (11), the involvement of native peoples (12) and the existence of loyalists in the Chesapeake area (13). The author then discusses the vengeance between sides fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania and the West (14), the British effort to seek southern support (15), and the high water mark of British efforts in the South (16). The author then closes with a discussion of the Patriot retribution after the departure of Cornwallis' army from the Carolinas (17) and the defeat of the British at Yorktown and its aftermath (18).
Plenty of Tories fought alongside the British imperial forces during the course of the American Revolution. This book helps to uncover the way that the British failed to do right by their loyal and harried supporters. For one, the British had a certain hierarchical view that induced them to look down on Americans in general, whether loyal or not, that was harmful to the self-regard and optimum use of the Loyalist support that existed within the American colonies. For another, the British troop levels were so low that they were not able to remain a permanent place in the areas their army was able to briefly occupy, leaving the loyalists who remained in the area vulnerable to retribution from patriot forces after the British army inevitably left. As a result, Loyalists were subject to various loss of rights, property, and even their lives, and eventually had to leave en masse when the British departed, since America ended up winning its independence and had demonstrated a hostility to those who had sought to prevent that end. If this book is certainly not the only side of the American Revolution one needs to know, it certainly tells a side of the story that few people are aware of to the extent that they should be. Even the losers of history deserve to have their side of the story preserved for the sake of posterity.
This book is almost 350 pages long and is divided into eighteen chapters. The book begins with a preface and an introduction that discusses the savage fury of the fight between Loyalists and Patriots. The author begins with a discussion of the period before the outbreak of conflict where Massachusetts society began to divide in the aftermath of the Stamp Act crisis (1), efforts were made to arm the Tories (2), and some Tories felt the need to either fight or flee (3) the coming trouble in the early 1770's. After that the author talks about the aim of the British commanders to subdue the bad elements within American society (4), and engage in the fight for control over Boston (5). The author details American efforts to conquer Canada (6) and the farewell fleet that departed Boston (7). After that there is a discussion of efforts to prepare for the inevitable desire to recover imperial authority on the part of the British (8), the call for Loyalist troops (9), and the beginning of the war in New York (10). There is a discussion of the war of terror fought in the area between New York and Patriot-held upstate New York (11), the involvement of native peoples (12) and the existence of loyalists in the Chesapeake area (13). The author then discusses the vengeance between sides fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania and the West (14), the British effort to seek southern support (15), and the high water mark of British efforts in the South (16). The author then closes with a discussion of the Patriot retribution after the departure of Cornwallis' army from the Carolinas (17) and the defeat of the British at Yorktown and its aftermath (18).
Plenty of Tories fought alongside the British imperial forces during the course of the American Revolution. This book helps to uncover the way that the British failed to do right by their loyal and harried supporters. For one, the British had a certain hierarchical view that induced them to look down on Americans in general, whether loyal or not, that was harmful to the self-regard and optimum use of the Loyalist support that existed within the American colonies. For another, the British troop levels were so low that they were not able to remain a permanent place in the areas their army was able to briefly occupy, leaving the loyalists who remained in the area vulnerable to retribution from patriot forces after the British army inevitably left. As a result, Loyalists were subject to various loss of rights, property, and even their lives, and eventually had to leave en masse when the British departed, since America ended up winning its independence and had demonstrated a hostility to those who had sought to prevent that end. If this book is certainly not the only side of the American Revolution one needs to know, it certainly tells a side of the story that few people are aware of to the extent that they should be. Even the losers of history deserve to have their side of the story preserved for the sake of posterity.
September 10, 2018
A pretty good read. Basically a review of the Revolution, pointing out where Tories and Tory military units participated. Dispels the myth that the Continentals had a unified movement toward independence. Also provides examples of the appalling violence in civilian on civilian episodes that easily define the Revolution as a civil war.
December 13, 2021
I just finished Thomas Allen’s Tories which is the telling of the story of a Civil War within a Revolution.
The dark underbelly and rarely told story of those colonists who did not support in spite of what was seen by many as heavy handed policies by Parliament and King, the intended outcome of The Declaration of Independence.
Just as seen in our second Civil War 80 years later The American Revolution often shows conflict between neighbors, brothers and in the case of Benjamin Franklin and William Franklin father a d son.
A fascinating and intricate tale of revolutionaries vs loyalists also known as Tories. Both groups saw themselves as patriots but in the end the winner often gets the last word on the writing of the history.
A history on what both groups were willing to do to see themselves as the winner of the conflict the book also demonstrates the fluid nature of allegiances depending on your position, wealth and who was in control of the region at that moment.
A well written and important addition to both the history and our understanding of the American Revolution of whole heartedly give this a solid 4 star rating.
The dark underbelly and rarely told story of those colonists who did not support in spite of what was seen by many as heavy handed policies by Parliament and King, the intended outcome of The Declaration of Independence.
Just as seen in our second Civil War 80 years later The American Revolution often shows conflict between neighbors, brothers and in the case of Benjamin Franklin and William Franklin father a d son.
A fascinating and intricate tale of revolutionaries vs loyalists also known as Tories. Both groups saw themselves as patriots but in the end the winner often gets the last word on the writing of the history.
A history on what both groups were willing to do to see themselves as the winner of the conflict the book also demonstrates the fluid nature of allegiances depending on your position, wealth and who was in control of the region at that moment.
A well written and important addition to both the history and our understanding of the American Revolution of whole heartedly give this a solid 4 star rating.
December 3, 2015
So... I did not finish this book. Usually I don't write a review if I haven't finished it but I think I actually got full value. The topic is fascinating and, like the author, I have been curious since grade school about the 1/3 of the colonial population who were described as being Loyalists. My secondary school history did not deal with them. Its a bit like "What happened to the Native Americans after Thanksgiving." The whole story was... only 1/3 were Patriots, 1/3 were indifferent and 1/3 were Loyalists. After the war, the Loyalists left for Canada or England or the Caribbean. -- I was thrilled with the opportunity to know more. ---- Allen did a great job collecting writings from the Loyalists, aka, Tories. The Tories took their diaries and writings with them. He collected them and used them for this book.
But here starts the problem. The writings and stories are not really interpreted. The stories are taken directly from the writings with all the supposition and perspective of the Tories. The Rebels are, more or less, hooligans. The loyalists are sympathetic in their own writings. No surprise. But without a perspective, it is not helpful. I tried. I read the beginning. When I began losing interest I started skimming... and throughout the book it was merely a collection of reminisces. Historical events described from the other side. First I don't know history well enough to fill in the gaps in perspective. Second, I know enough of the colonial history to know that this book was one sided. And in the absence of interpretation, this was not helpful.
Finally, the writing was not clear. i had to reread sentences, even while skimming, to understand meanings. I like the topic but don't recommend the book.
I would like to see an even treatment that appreciates both the injustices that led to the Revolution and the reasons why it was a civil war for others.
But here starts the problem. The writings and stories are not really interpreted. The stories are taken directly from the writings with all the supposition and perspective of the Tories. The Rebels are, more or less, hooligans. The loyalists are sympathetic in their own writings. No surprise. But without a perspective, it is not helpful. I tried. I read the beginning. When I began losing interest I started skimming... and throughout the book it was merely a collection of reminisces. Historical events described from the other side. First I don't know history well enough to fill in the gaps in perspective. Second, I know enough of the colonial history to know that this book was one sided. And in the absence of interpretation, this was not helpful.
Finally, the writing was not clear. i had to reread sentences, even while skimming, to understand meanings. I like the topic but don't recommend the book.
I would like to see an even treatment that appreciates both the injustices that led to the Revolution and the reasons why it was a civil war for others.
April 20, 2015
Pretty interesting book, and the second one I've read about the Revolutionary War. (The first was 1776 by David McCullough) McCullough is a superb writer. Allen is a fair to middling writer but a good historian and popularizer. He makes the point that our first war was a really a civil war. I had no idea of number of Americans who called themselves Loyalists and didn't want to break away from the motherland. The fighting was ferocious, vicious, brutal, and unstopping. Good reading if you like history.
June 17, 2014
I'm going to move this to the 'read' pile, even though I'm still working on it, because it is a REALLY dense read. Deennnnnnnse. So probably for real history buffs rather than the casual reader. I'm on about page 200 and it's still 1775. Very interesting to see things from the other side (especially since that's 'my' side) but I'm going to have to come back to this in bits and pieces; impossible to read straight through.
April 5, 2013
Not much of a conclusion and can drag on into minutia at times but it's a fascinating and well written account of a part of the Revolution I've never paid any attention to. No study or reading of the Revolutionary War should be complete without this.
February 8, 2021
I really liked this book. It sheds a different light on the American Revolution. It really hit home when it talked about events my family was a part of.
The was was much more than British vs. Americans.
p. 3: "Religion remained an issue as colonists took sides in the 1770s, when virtually every Anglican clergyman in American became a Loyalist, and Presbyterians were labeled Rebels."
p. 21: "Gage prorogued -- discontinued without dissolving -- the Great and General Court of Massachusetts and move it from turbulent Boston to quieter Salem."
p. 31: "Patriots -- 'hoodlum,' the Loyalists called them -- were openly asserting their power."
p. 48: "Patriots had raided the tavern and stolen liquor, along with two expensive delicacies, raisins and lemons."
p. 70: "The only Rebels ineligible for a pardon were Sam Adams and John Hancock, 'whose offences are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment."
p. 86: "After the Acts of Union in 1707, joining the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain, 'North British' was the preferred promonarchy name for Scotland."
p. 94: "The congressmen saw a march northward as a friendly act of liberation from British tyranny, not as an unprovoked attack on a neighbor."
p. 94-5: "Congress added an odd condition that showed American sensibilities toward the neighbor to the north: Invade only if the invasion 'will not be disagreeable to the Canadians.'"
p. 101: "A half century before, King George I had been warned about the Highlanders: 'Their Notions of Virtue and Vice are very different from the more civilised part of Mankind.'"
p. 115: ToriesFightingForTheKing.com
p. 118: "I hope that I shall live to return, find this wicked Rebellion crushed, and see the streets of Marblehead run with Rebel blood."
p. 119: George Washington on Tories: "Unhappy wretches! Deluded mortals! One or two have done, what great number ought to have done long ago, committed suicide."
p. 129: "Supplying arms to America meant that Redcoats would be shot by French bullets from French guns--and French soldiers would not have to endanger themselves by pulling the trigger."
p. 146: King James thought the Irish "needed civilizing."
p. 146: "By the 1750s the immigrants were being called the Scotch-Irish, a shorthand acknowledgement of Scotch descent and Northern Ireland origin. The newcomers usually called themselves Scotch, avoiding any suggestion that they were partially Irish."
p. 148: "Call this war ... by whatever name you may, only call it not an American Rebellion; it is nothing more nor less than Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion."
p. 154: "Dunmore ... proclaimed freedom for all slaves or indentured servants belonging to Rebels, as long as they 'are able and willing to bear arms' and join 'His Majesty's Troops.' Dunmore's proclamation stunned Virginia, where there were nearly as many slaves as white persons."
p. 190: "Every American now had a choice: to remain a subject of King George III and thus a traitor to a new regime called the United States of America or to support the rebellion and become a traitor to the Crown."
p. 212: "Oneida and Tuscarora broke away to support the Patriots, while the other tribes agreed to become warriors for the British and their Loyalists allies."
p. 219: "Tories enlisted for the duration of the war. Rebels typically signed up for months at a time because they had farms or businesses to run. Tories typically had forfeited their homes, land, and way of life, for they knew that if they returned they would be prosecuted under state confiscation and treason laws. Their only hope for return was a British victory."
p. 230: Battle of Saratoga: "the turning point of the war."
p. 250: George Washington: "With respect to your future treatment of the Tories, the most effectual way of putting a stop to their traiterous practices, will be shooting some of the most notorious offenders wherever they can be found in flagrante delicto. This summary punishment inflicted on a few leading traitors will probably strike terror into others and deter them from exposing themselves to a similar fate."
p. 281: Four classes in South Carolina:
1) Those, especially the wealthy, who were pleased to see South Carolina again under royal rule
2) Those who had been duped by the Rebels, regretted their failings, and now supported the king
3) Those who were repentant ex-Rebels
4) Those who were still Rebels and unrepentant
p. 283: "Patriots and Loyalists had a word for that kind of war: 'intestine.'"
p. 290: "The battle of King's Mountain was a requiem for Tories everywhere in America. The reality of the Revolution was there on that Carolina ridge: The only British subject in the battle was Ferguson. Everyone else was an American, and those who chose to fight for King George III had chosen the wrong side."
p. 328: "By pouring Loyalists into sparsely populated Nova Scotia, Britain would assure the creation of an English-speaking region that would offset the French-speaking, Roman Catholic Quebec region."
p. 388: British and American History Paintings of the 1700s: https://www.nga.gov/features/slidesho...
p. 401: Gavin K. Watt, The Burning of the Valleys
The was was much more than British vs. Americans.
p. 3: "Religion remained an issue as colonists took sides in the 1770s, when virtually every Anglican clergyman in American became a Loyalist, and Presbyterians were labeled Rebels."
p. 21: "Gage prorogued -- discontinued without dissolving -- the Great and General Court of Massachusetts and move it from turbulent Boston to quieter Salem."
p. 31: "Patriots -- 'hoodlum,' the Loyalists called them -- were openly asserting their power."
p. 48: "Patriots had raided the tavern and stolen liquor, along with two expensive delicacies, raisins and lemons."
p. 70: "The only Rebels ineligible for a pardon were Sam Adams and John Hancock, 'whose offences are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment."
p. 86: "After the Acts of Union in 1707, joining the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain, 'North British' was the preferred promonarchy name for Scotland."
p. 94: "The congressmen saw a march northward as a friendly act of liberation from British tyranny, not as an unprovoked attack on a neighbor."
p. 94-5: "Congress added an odd condition that showed American sensibilities toward the neighbor to the north: Invade only if the invasion 'will not be disagreeable to the Canadians.'"
p. 101: "A half century before, King George I had been warned about the Highlanders: 'Their Notions of Virtue and Vice are very different from the more civilised part of Mankind.'"
p. 115: ToriesFightingForTheKing.com
p. 118: "I hope that I shall live to return, find this wicked Rebellion crushed, and see the streets of Marblehead run with Rebel blood."
p. 119: George Washington on Tories: "Unhappy wretches! Deluded mortals! One or two have done, what great number ought to have done long ago, committed suicide."
p. 129: "Supplying arms to America meant that Redcoats would be shot by French bullets from French guns--and French soldiers would not have to endanger themselves by pulling the trigger."
p. 146: King James thought the Irish "needed civilizing."
p. 146: "By the 1750s the immigrants were being called the Scotch-Irish, a shorthand acknowledgement of Scotch descent and Northern Ireland origin. The newcomers usually called themselves Scotch, avoiding any suggestion that they were partially Irish."
p. 148: "Call this war ... by whatever name you may, only call it not an American Rebellion; it is nothing more nor less than Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion."
p. 154: "Dunmore ... proclaimed freedom for all slaves or indentured servants belonging to Rebels, as long as they 'are able and willing to bear arms' and join 'His Majesty's Troops.' Dunmore's proclamation stunned Virginia, where there were nearly as many slaves as white persons."
p. 190: "Every American now had a choice: to remain a subject of King George III and thus a traitor to a new regime called the United States of America or to support the rebellion and become a traitor to the Crown."
p. 212: "Oneida and Tuscarora broke away to support the Patriots, while the other tribes agreed to become warriors for the British and their Loyalists allies."
p. 219: "Tories enlisted for the duration of the war. Rebels typically signed up for months at a time because they had farms or businesses to run. Tories typically had forfeited their homes, land, and way of life, for they knew that if they returned they would be prosecuted under state confiscation and treason laws. Their only hope for return was a British victory."
p. 230: Battle of Saratoga: "the turning point of the war."
p. 250: George Washington: "With respect to your future treatment of the Tories, the most effectual way of putting a stop to their traiterous practices, will be shooting some of the most notorious offenders wherever they can be found in flagrante delicto. This summary punishment inflicted on a few leading traitors will probably strike terror into others and deter them from exposing themselves to a similar fate."
p. 281: Four classes in South Carolina:
1) Those, especially the wealthy, who were pleased to see South Carolina again under royal rule
2) Those who had been duped by the Rebels, regretted their failings, and now supported the king
3) Those who were repentant ex-Rebels
4) Those who were still Rebels and unrepentant
p. 283: "Patriots and Loyalists had a word for that kind of war: 'intestine.'"
p. 290: "The battle of King's Mountain was a requiem for Tories everywhere in America. The reality of the Revolution was there on that Carolina ridge: The only British subject in the battle was Ferguson. Everyone else was an American, and those who chose to fight for King George III had chosen the wrong side."
p. 328: "By pouring Loyalists into sparsely populated Nova Scotia, Britain would assure the creation of an English-speaking region that would offset the French-speaking, Roman Catholic Quebec region."
p. 388: British and American History Paintings of the 1700s: https://www.nga.gov/features/slidesho...
p. 401: Gavin K. Watt, The Burning of the Valleys
April 13, 2011
Great book on the "other side" in the Revolution
Read
May 20, 2011I recently found out that I have some ancestors who went back to England because of their Tory sympathies so I'm interested to start this book though I won't promise I'll finish it.
July 26, 2011
Allen's book adds nothing new to the study of loyalism during the American Revolution. Still the book is well written and has a grasp of recent historiography.
March 1, 2012
Excellent history of a group of people, little known and misunderstood from both sides of the pond.
November 12, 2020
A very informative and well paced read. The timeline pretty much takes us from the start of the war to the end of the war, but deals strictly with confrontations between Rebels and Tories. The battles between the armies are referenced, but the goods are delivered when we learn of the lesser known, if known at all, skirmishes and raids involving American-on-American violence. These are the conflicts that will remind you of how much the American Revolution was a civil war, and how tragically close to home it came to those British subjects of the North American colonies, both those loyal to the crown and those in rebellion. One instance that stuck out to me were the raids along the Connecticut coast by Governor William Tryon in 1779. He and his followers attacked New Haven, then East Haven, and then they attacked Fairfield and burned it to the ground, and then Norwalk and burned that to the ground as well. After reading of the devastation in two towns, I was somewhat surprised they went after a third. But then I was absolutely stunned that they went on to a fourth! I have never heard of these raids in all of my Revolution literature, so most of this book was a trove of new information. Except for a plethora of typos, this was a wonderfully written book and I would highly recommend it.
January 30, 2019
We are taught that US Revolutionary War was a struggle for independence done by liberty-and-freedom-loving Patriots against the tyrannical George III and his British Empire. However, what happened if people who you were supposed to fight belong to your people too, that is, American people who were loyal to the crown, hence the name, the loyalists, or popularly called, the tories. This book brings us to the other different view of US Revolutionary War, the one that describes the whole conflict as a civil war, pitting brethrens against each other in bloody, pitiless fights, from Canada down to Savannah, Georgia. I think of the loyalists as tragic sorts of people, fiercely loyal to the crown, yet reluctant to leave the place where they were born, the Thirteen Colonies. This book is mostly discussed the loyalists’ efforts in supporting the British’s war efforts, which I deemed as mixed, sometimes useful, sometimes hindering, especially in deluding the governor-generals of illusion of large-scale loyalists’ uprisings all around the colonies.
November 6, 2022
Sometimes you need to consider the other side of things.
Thomas Allen does something I did not think was possible. He made me sympathize with the Tories of the Revolutionary War.
I still think they were wrong, and screw England and all that. However, Allen documents so thoroughly what loyalists dealt with from before the war to after that it is hard to villainize them completely. They were constantly under the threat of beatings or even death. They needed to keep quiet about their feelings in a, “if you are not with us, you are against us,” atmosphere. And for those who consistently forget what the Constitution is about, that type of thinking is demonstrably not the American Way.
These types of books, which cover a long time period and a big group of people, can often feel like reading a textbook. Allen writes so well it feels like you are reading a novel. It’s a great read while being very informative. The best of both worlds according to this nerd!
Thomas Allen does something I did not think was possible. He made me sympathize with the Tories of the Revolutionary War.
I still think they were wrong, and screw England and all that. However, Allen documents so thoroughly what loyalists dealt with from before the war to after that it is hard to villainize them completely. They were constantly under the threat of beatings or even death. They needed to keep quiet about their feelings in a, “if you are not with us, you are against us,” atmosphere. And for those who consistently forget what the Constitution is about, that type of thinking is demonstrably not the American Way.
These types of books, which cover a long time period and a big group of people, can often feel like reading a textbook. Allen writes so well it feels like you are reading a novel. It’s a great read while being very informative. The best of both worlds according to this nerd!
January 29, 2025
I love learning about the other side of a history. As the saying goes, it's written by the victors. So reading what the defeated were doing reveals things aren't as simple as the victors portray. Here are some of my favorite things:
The ill-fated invasion of Canada was an attempt to make it the 14th colony.
Ben Franklin's son, William, was a Tory.
There wasn't one event that turned Benedict Arnold's coat, it was a accumulation of varies indignities. And it happened much later in the war than I imagined.
After the war, 10s of thousands of Tories moved to Canada and the slaves that were freed became a point of contention. Of course they did.
The history isn't exhaustive and the end of the war came abruptly. The penultimate chapter was the end of the war even though the previous chapter didn't directly deal with the year before then end. That said, it didn't detract from the book very much!
The ill-fated invasion of Canada was an attempt to make it the 14th colony.
Ben Franklin's son, William, was a Tory.
There wasn't one event that turned Benedict Arnold's coat, it was a accumulation of varies indignities. And it happened much later in the war than I imagined.
After the war, 10s of thousands of Tories moved to Canada and the slaves that were freed became a point of contention. Of course they did.
The history isn't exhaustive and the end of the war came abruptly. The penultimate chapter was the end of the war even though the previous chapter didn't directly deal with the year before then end. That said, it didn't detract from the book very much!
February 15, 2018
Wow, I did not like this book at at all. I really had high hopes for it but it was a huge let down. I really wanted a book that went to why people stuck with the King over their rebel neighbors. I wanted to know what cities were most sympathetic to the Crown and why. I wanted to know more about Tories in general not so much individuals that I have never heard of.
The problem with this book is that is provides no context, it's just stories about specific people that stay on the side of England. That's fine and the author did a good job taking that road, it's just not the one that I wanted. I also felt the writing was a tad dry. It just didn't grab me.
Oh well, win some-lose some. Off to the next book.
The problem with this book is that is provides no context, it's just stories about specific people that stay on the side of England. That's fine and the author did a good job taking that road, it's just not the one that I wanted. I also felt the writing was a tad dry. It just didn't grab me.
Oh well, win some-lose some. Off to the next book.
April 11, 2019
Probably a good 'starter' book for Americans on the Loyalists in the war. Parts of it were well balanced; other parts emphasised Loyalist misbehaviour while seeming to ignore the fact that it went both ways in equal measure, but perhaps this is simply because he was trying to write about Tories specifically. He delved more than most into the different ethnic groups and how they tended to align, and he touches on the antipathy between Anglicans and Presbyterians, a carryover from the same conflict in Britain a century earlier.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews