This blog is a forum for students enrolled in HIS 115A to discuss their research. Research questions will be introduced with a blog post and you can use the navigation at left to access those questions and related discussions. Reference Librarian Trish McPherson will respond to your comments with suggestions for additional resources and search strategies. It's hoped that this blog will foster an ongoing dialogue about your research.
This is an article from a from The Worcester Gazette, a newspaper in Boston from 1782. The paper talks about how the loyalist in the colonies are pledging their allegiance to Great Britain. They separate them selves from the other colonist because they disagree with their views and their actions against Great Britain. They ultimately support Great Britain during the war because they have pride and respect for their home land, and because they are promised money and freedom if Great Britain wins the war.
This is a great article describing the strong feelings of loyalists to their King as well as their embarrassment of being in the same country as the Patriots. This article seems to come from a Loyalist perspective and in some parts tries to convince the Patriots to come back to their senses.
I really liked this article, because it has a sincerity that seems more honest that the revolutionary cause. After all, Britain did accrue the debt from attempting to protect an overseas colony, and that is not a inexpensive feat. It also displays the precarious position that the loyalist colonists were placed in. It would be very difficult to separate from their neighbors, it actually put their lives and property at risk. This will be a wonderful source when we work on the debates!
I liked this article because it shows how some of the colonists still wanted to hold loyalty towards their homeland. This article shows how the king policies still stood out to them as a betters way of life. This article also shows how there were many different influential factors trying to sway the Patriots to either side of the war.
This article describes the great pride of the American patriots and starts off by stating that they have the right to say whatever they want because of the unjust and cruel treatment of their king. It also talks about in the end about how standing u for themselves and boycotting caused the government to repeal most of the Stamp Act and they shouldn't stop now.
The Transformation of Local Governance in Monmouth County, New Jersey, during the War of the American Revolution MICHAEL S. ADELBERG
Michael S Adelberg's article, "The Transformation of Local Governance in Monmouth Country, New Jersey, during the War of the American Revolution" is significant because it emphasizes the fact that not every colonist sided with the Revolution. Not only did some people choose to abstain from the violent protestations led by the Sons of Liberty, some people openly entered war against the Continental Army. The article also emphasizes how the American Revolution was more a series of multiple wars with many different groups than it was a war between two groups of people. Monmouth New Jersey was an especially diverse community, which led to much dispute over the course of the revolution.
This letter, that James Murray wrote, emphasizes the discomfort many of the Loyalists felt with the independence movement. He records how distressed they were, and how quick they were to move away, as if on a self-imposed exile. Many of the residents of Monmouth were forced away, or left on their own accord, rather than live among the busy and dangerous patrios.
I really enjoyed how this article gave a good insight into how the loyalists felt about the independence movement. The fact that people would gather their belongings and move themselves to places such as Nova Scotia, was shocking to me. I knew that people disagreed with the independence movement, however, i was unaware that people who had lived their entire lives in America had felt such disdain towards the situation that they would actually leave the country.
This is a collection of letters by a loyalist, James Murray who had strong ties to his motherland so he wanted to avoid as much turmoil as he could. He was considered a “Tory” at the time, one who just wants to keep peace and avoid conflict. Murray supported the Revolution because he wants the acts of terrorism to stop. It is seen in his letter to Charles Stewart on September 3rd, 1770 when he says it seems as though both countries would suffer less if they separated. He said too many government officials were dying and that it would be best to stop this suffering. However he does not consider this as quitting on the King.
this is a great primary source i really enjoyed reading about this murray character. it was very interesting to me to see what he had to say becasue he had ties to Britain. it was nice to read these. Good choice
I found an article from the Connecticut Journal in 1775 describing what the “true original meaning” of the word Tory meant. It describes how a Tory would agree with the king because he believed that “the King held his crown of none by God.” This shows how, unlike the Patriots, the Loyalists of the time did not feel that they needed to go to war with Britain because they were fine with having the king rule over them. The article also states that the Loyalists believed that the “people were made entirely for [the king], and that he had a right to dispose of their fortunes, lives, and liberties in defiance of his coronation oath.” The Loyalists were completely faithful to the king so they did not have a reason to fight against him like the Patriots did.
Although I didn't understand a lot of what that article said, I could interpret the fact that they were almost defending themselves by listing why they have a right to deny the war. I also noticed they were calling some sort of people the "jacobites"- Who is that directed towards and where does that term come from? Hmm...
I found this article on the African American patriots who fought at some point against the British in their desire for freedom. I liked the first story about Salem Poor and how he received credit for his actions even though he was an African American. However, I’m not sure how accurate the story is because after reading the Crispus Attucks story, the details were a little off. I didn’t read every story but it was interesting how many stories they have recorded. I know that many African Americans fought over the course of the revolution, but I was afraid all of them never got any credit. It’s pretty amazing how a man buys his freedom and then goes to sacrifice his life for a colony that has given him nothing but pain and suffering. http://www.fold3.com/page/747_african_american_patriots_of_the/
The article that I found is from the Connecticut journal from April 4, 1776. The article was from a man named Richard Mansfield who was a loyalist from New Haven, Connecticut. Mansfield speaks of how some of the colonists decided to join the kings side. I feel that many of Americans now think that if you were a colonist during the 1776 time period you supported the Patriots side of the American Revolution. Mansfield states that around 80 people in his town decided to join the King's troops because of their beliefs towards the war. This letter shows how some of the colonists, indeed did support the king and were not all patriots.
This was very interesting, it is crazy to think that even in a smaller town that over 80 colonists decided to switch sides. This is very different than my opinion on the issue growing up.
Oops- I forgot that we were using primary sources! I found a similar article to the one I posted earlier about Salem Poor. I looked under "Black Thought and Culture" in the library's primary resources. Again- it shows how he was unlike any other soldier and deserved a lot of credit for his actions towards "America's freedom"- Not just his own.
The early 1770s was a period of tension between the colonists and the British. The colonists were upset about many things but they were really ticked off about all of the acts and movements the British imposed on the colonists. The colonists believed that there should be no tax put on them because they can do everything on their own and they shouldn’t have to have the British people telling them what to do because the colonists can govern themselves. Never the less, the British continued to tax and make acts and laws for the colonies, showing they didn’t care about the colonist opinion. There were many people in the colonies who believed the British had too much power over the colonists. The people living in the colonies were upset by the British troops that were in their neighborhoods because those two parties were constantly fighting and battling for each other’s jobs. Many people and powerful groups like the sons of liberty were driven by money. There were many conflicts between the colonists and the British soldiers which lead to the colonists thought and need to take action on this and try to free themselves from the controlling Britain. Patriots in the colonies believed that American’s independence would make them happier and more likely to succeed. These people believed and voiced their opinion to the British. These ideas by the colonists led to the American Revolution that separated the colonies from Britain.
I choose this article because it different and not really about the loyalist or the patriots, but about the information getting exchanged foreignly. It talked about what the loyalists and the different people "representing" different states
The primary source that I found was a piece that was published in a newspaper in London. It gives an alternative point of view of the Boston Tea Party after the fact. The author is looking back on the Tea Party as an influential moment in the rebellion against the British. He says, "that as wise and virtuous men, as good citizens, and true patriots, they could not have acted otherwise than as they did." He is justifying their actions and telling the people in Britain to put it into perspective, and essentially asking, what would have you done. This piece emphasizes how not only the population in the colonies was split but also some people in Britain believed the colonies actions, and their rebellion against the British were justified.
The primary source I found was a collection of letters written by James Murray, a loyalist from Boston. He had strong family ties to England, and he moved from North Carolina to Massachusetts in search of a place without rebellion. In his opinion, the best option was one that resulted in the least amount of violence and rebellion.
This primary source was a newspaper clipping that discussed a meeting between Creek Indians and the people of South Carolina. WIthin this meeting, the Indians had to agree to many stipulations, many of which constrained the Native Americans from living freely the way they had before, and also restricted the land in which they can settle. After reviewing such a short clipping of a single event, it is very clear as to why the Natives in these areas were siding with the British and attacking the colonists.
The primary source that I found talked about the loyalists who were not trying to start trouble but instead did not want to get involved in what was happening between Britain and the patriots. The article talked about how the loyalists had to join the patriots and if not then they would be kicked to the street and the home would be burned. The article also talked about how forcing the people to pick sides caused disagreements between husbands and wife's and divided entire families.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=E62E58QUMTM2MzIyMjY4MS42MDc5ODI6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=3&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=3&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:10284A66F6BC7768@EANX-102F96E3B41220F8@2372128-102F96E3D4114ECA@0
ReplyDeleteThis is an article from a from The Worcester Gazette, a newspaper in Boston from 1782. The paper talks about how the loyalist in the colonies are pledging their allegiance to Great Britain. They separate them selves from the other colonist because they disagree with their views and their actions against Great Britain. They ultimately support Great Britain during the war because they have pride and respect for their home land, and because they are promised money and freedom if Great Britain wins the war.
This is a great article describing the strong feelings of loyalists to their King as well as their embarrassment of being in the same country as the Patriots. This article seems to come from a Loyalist perspective and in some parts tries to convince the Patriots to come back to their senses.
DeleteI really liked this article, because it has a sincerity that seems more honest that the revolutionary cause. After all, Britain did accrue the debt from attempting to protect an overseas colony, and that is not a inexpensive feat. It also displays the precarious position that the loyalist colonists were placed in. It would be very difficult to separate from their neighbors, it actually put their lives and property at risk. This will be a wonderful source when we work on the debates!
DeleteI liked this article because it shows how some of the colonists still wanted to hold loyalty towards their homeland. This article shows how the king policies still stood out to them as a betters way of life. This article also shows how there were many different influential factors trying to sway the Patriots to either side of the war.
DeleteThis was posted by Onyx Linton. I accidentally logged in using an old blogger from an old English class assignment. Sorry for the inconvenience.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article describes the great pride of the American patriots and starts off by stating that they have the right to say whatever they want because of the unjust and cruel treatment of their king. It also talks about in the end about how standing u for themselves and boycotting caused the government to repeal most of the Stamp Act and they shouldn't stop now.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K4EW44UAMTM2MzIyNDA2OC41ODAxMTA6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=3&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=3&p_docnum=2&p_docref=v2:1089C7C672FD2D48@EANX-108D83B38883E6B0@2369423-108D83B3941F7958@0-108D83B40CD42630
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.library.stonehill.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=233989db-a310-41ae-af70-bda25d95d142%40sessionmgr15&vid=11&hid=26
ReplyDeleteThe Transformation of Local Governance
in Monmouth County, New Jersey,
during the War of the American
Revolution
MICHAEL S. ADELBERG
Michael S Adelberg's article, "The Transformation of Local Governance in Monmouth Country, New Jersey, during the War of the American Revolution" is significant because it emphasizes the fact that not every colonist sided with the Revolution. Not only did some people choose to abstain from the violent protestations led by the Sons of Liberty, some people openly entered war against the Continental Army. The article also emphasizes how the American Revolution was more a series of multiple wars with many different groups than it was a war between two groups of people. Monmouth New Jersey was an especially diverse community, which led to much dispute over the course of the revolution.
Woops, what I thought were primary sources within the article were actually just tables, so I added a letter that has a connection to the article.
Deletehttp://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/contextualize.pl?p.327.eena.285823
This letter, that James Murray wrote, emphasizes the discomfort many of the Loyalists felt with the independence movement. He records how distressed they were, and how quick they were to move away, as if on a self-imposed exile. Many of the residents of Monmouth were forced away, or left on their own accord, rather than live among the busy and dangerous patrios.
I really enjoyed how this article gave a good insight into how the loyalists felt about the independence movement. The fact that people would gather their belongings and move themselves to places such as Nova Scotia, was shocking to me. I knew that people disagreed with the independence movement, however, i was unaware that people who had lived their entire lives in America had felt such disdain towards the situation that they would actually leave the country.
Deletehttp://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.327:2:3.eena
ReplyDeleteThis is a collection of letters by a loyalist, James Murray who had strong ties to his motherland so he wanted to avoid as much turmoil as he could. He was considered a “Tory” at the time, one who just wants to keep peace and avoid conflict. Murray supported the Revolution because he wants the acts of terrorism to stop. It is seen in his letter to Charles Stewart on September 3rd, 1770 when he says it seems as though both countries would suffer less if they separated. He said too many government officials were dying and that it would be best to stop this suffering. However he does not consider this as quitting on the King.
this is a great primary source i really enjoyed reading about this murray character. it was very interesting to me to see what he had to say becasue he had ties to Britain. it was nice to read these. Good choice
Deletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=G6AI5CVYMTM2MzUzMzYyNi42OTQ4ODM6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=6&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=6&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:1035C6AC8931AEF8@EANX-1034DCAACFDE5EEF@2369446-1034DCAB03556B6B@2-1034DCAB90BC315F@From+the+Massachusetts+Spy
ReplyDeleteI found an article from the Connecticut Journal in 1775 describing what the “true original meaning” of the word Tory meant. It describes how a Tory would agree with the king because he believed that “the King held his crown of none by God.” This shows how, unlike the Patriots, the Loyalists of the time did not feel that they needed to go to war with Britain because they were fine with having the king rule over them. The article also states that the Loyalists believed that the “people were made entirely for [the king], and that he had a right to dispose of their fortunes, lives, and liberties in defiance of his coronation oath.” The Loyalists were completely faithful to the king so they did not have a reason to fight against him like the Patriots did.
Although I didn't understand a lot of what that article said, I could interpret the fact that they were almost defending themselves by listing why they have a right to deny the war. I also noticed they were calling some sort of people the "jacobites"- Who is that directed towards and where does that term come from? Hmm...
DeleteI found this article on the African American patriots who fought at some point against the British in their desire for freedom. I liked the first story about Salem Poor and how he received credit for his actions even though he was an African American. However, I’m not sure how accurate the story is because after reading the Crispus Attucks story, the details were a little off. I didn’t read every story but it was interesting how many stories they have recorded. I know that many African Americans fought over the course of the revolution, but I was afraid all of them never got any credit. It’s pretty amazing how a man buys his freedom and then goes to sacrifice his life for a colony that has given him nothing but pain and suffering.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fold3.com/page/747_african_american_patriots_of_the/
The article that I found is from the Connecticut journal from April 4, 1776. The article was from a man named Richard Mansfield who was a loyalist from New Haven, Connecticut. Mansfield speaks of how some of the colonists decided to join the kings side. I feel that many of Americans now think that if you were a colonist during the 1776 time period you supported the Patriots side of the American Revolution. Mansfield states that around 80 people in his town decided to join the King's troops because of their beliefs towards the war. This letter shows how some of the colonists, indeed did support the king and were not all patriots.
ReplyDeleteThis was very interesting, it is crazy to think that even in a smaller town that over 80 colonists decided to switch sides. This is very different than my opinion on the issue growing up.
Deletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=P68Q5AIWMTM2MzU2NTE4OS40NDQ2Nzc6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=7&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=7&p_docnum=1&p_docref=v2:1035C6AC8931AEF8@EANX-1034DCE74B782969@2369838-1034DCE79A292CDC@3-1034DCE8222C7555@%5BRichard+Mansfield%3B+Derby%3B+New-Haven%3B+Gov.+Tryon%3B+Connecticut%5D
ReplyDeletethis is the link to my letter.
Oops- I forgot that we were using primary sources! I found a similar article to the one I posted earlier about Salem Poor. I looked under "Black Thought and Culture" in the library's primary resources. Again- it shows how he was unlike any other soldier and deserved a lot of credit for his actions towards "America's freedom"- Not just his own.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.1901:1:0:-1:23.bltc.16208.16214
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K63X5DQSMTM1MDQyMDI0MC41MTQwMjA6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=17&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=17&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:106AD2C0F76EDF48@EANX-107027ABEAB48A78@2369003-107027ABFB0CD240@0-107027ACB84E65F0@The+Association+of+the+Sons+of+Liberty
ReplyDeleteThe early 1770s was a period of tension between the colonists and the British. The colonists were upset about many things but they were really ticked off about all of the acts and movements the British imposed on the colonists. The colonists believed that there should be no tax put on them because they can do everything on their own and they shouldn’t have to have the British people telling them what to do because the colonists can govern themselves. Never the less, the British continued to tax and make acts and laws for the colonies, showing they didn’t care about the colonist opinion. There were many people in the colonies who believed the British had too much power over the colonists. The people living in the colonies were upset by the British troops that were in their neighborhoods because those two parties were constantly fighting and battling for each other’s jobs. Many people and powerful groups like the sons of liberty were driven by money. There were many conflicts between the colonists and the British soldiers which lead to the colonists thought and need to take action on this and try to free themselves from the controlling Britain. Patriots in the colonies believed that American’s independence would make them happier and more likely to succeed. These people believed and voiced their opinion to the British. These ideas by the colonists led to the American Revolution that separated the colonies from Britain.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=F5ED50FMMTM2MzU1MTM3OC4xNjEyMDY6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=4&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=4&p_docnum=6&p_docref=v2:10CEB9BDCC081400@EANX-10E685C5A9A6E338@2372387-10E685C5E533F4D0@2-10E685C64B2345C8@Foreign+Intelligence.+London
ReplyDeleteI choose this article because it different and not really about the loyalist or the patriots, but about the information getting exchanged foreignly. It talked about what the loyalists and the different people "representing" different states
The primary source that I found was a piece that was published in a newspaper in London. It gives an alternative point of view of the Boston Tea Party after the fact. The author is looking back on the Tea Party as an influential moment in the rebellion against the British. He says, "that as wise and virtuous men, as good citizens, and true patriots, they could not have acted otherwise than as they did." He is justifying their actions and telling the people in Britain to put it into perspective, and essentially asking, what would have you done. This piece emphasizes how not only the population in the colonies was split but also some people in Britain believed the colonies actions, and their rebellion against the British were justified.
ReplyDeleteHere is my article:
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=U53X45JBMTM2MzU2Mjc1Ny41NjkxMjg6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=15&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=15&p_docnum=2&p_docref=v2:1089C83401C5FAC0@EANX-1089D2D66D47CC00@2369375-1089D2D6784FC580@0-1089D2D7076B8D28@An+Extract+from+a+Pamphlet+Lately+Published+in+London
The primary source I found was a collection of letters written by James Murray, a loyalist from Boston. He had strong family ties to England, and he moved from North Carolina to Massachusetts in search of a place without rebellion. In his opinion, the best option was one that resulted in the least amount of violence and rebellion.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.327:2:3.eena
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=E58C49GFMTM2MzU3MzA2NS4yNDM6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=4&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=4&p_docnum=2&p_docref=v2:1089C792E64CF650@EANX-1089CBB16C11FB80@2369367-1089CBB17846A590@0-1089CBB1F788B490@Charlestown%2C+%28So.+Carolina%29+Nov.+1
ReplyDeleteThis primary source was a newspaper clipping that discussed a meeting between Creek Indians and the people of South Carolina. WIthin this meeting, the Indians had to agree to many stipulations, many of which constrained the Native Americans from living freely the way they had before, and also restricted the land in which they can settle. After reviewing such a short clipping of a single event, it is very clear as to why the Natives in these areas were siding with the British and attacking the colonists.
The primary source that I found talked about the loyalists who were not trying to start trouble but instead did not want to get involved in what was happening between Britain and the patriots. The article talked about how the loyalists had to join the patriots and if not then they would be kicked to the street and the home would be burned. The article also talked about how forcing the people to pick sides caused disagreements between husbands and wife's and divided entire families.
ReplyDelete