1. #191
    luftluuver's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,004
    Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
    Slavery and slave trade existed in Africa as well. Losers of wars that survived were taken
    as slaves if not sacrificed though the children of the slaves were not slaves. Slave trade
    moved between African nations and continued after Muslim control moved in. I've seen records
    of silver and livestock traded to African nations for shiploads of slaves.

    AFAIK the first Euros to take slaves from Africa was Portugal in IIRC 1510 but maybe it's 1610.
    You mean 'modern' Euros? Rome was taking slaves from Africa a long time before the 1500s.
    Share this post

  2. #192
    MB_Avro_UK's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,978
    MLudner...many thanks for your informed replies

    I'm also interested in the 'mindset' of the Colonists.

    It has been mentioned that those of English origin (what would be their percentage of all European immigrants?)emigrated from England as they were not satisfied perhaps with the social/political 'status-quo' in England.

    Were many other English immigrants perhaps seeking economic opportunities in America and were they perhaps the majority?

    In other words,was there a 'split' of ideology towards the war between those English who had left for economic aspirations and those who had left for political aspirations?

    From what I am beginning to realise,the War of Independence was perhaps a complex issue and not a simple 'Red v Blue' situation.(Apologies for making an IL2 term of comparison!).

    If there was a 'split', what were the effects after the war? And was there significant English/British immigration to America after the war?

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    Share this post

  3. #193
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    There were several reasons to emigrate to the American colonies from Britain, and from my reading on the subject, the overwhelming majority in the original 13 States (plus Maine) were descended from inhabitants of the British isles. There were some significant pockets of Dutch around New York, and a number of German communities (religious immigrants mostly) in Pennsylvania, but by and large, in the late 1700s most were from the British Isles.

    It should be recognized that most crossed the Atlantic in those days with the understanding that they would not be coming back very often, if at all.

    Common reasons for immigrating were:

    1. Religious. Practice of other than Church of England approved Christianity was generally frowned upon, at a minimum. This does not mean that religious refugees to the New World uniformly practiced religious tolerance, it merely means that their practices were not well tolerated in Britain or their native land in Europe.

    Anyone who belonged to a religious group (Calvinist, Quaker, Puritan or even Jewish) not well liked by the majority in their homeland might easily have contemplated migrating to the Americas to create their own community where they were able to worship as they thought proper. Americans still tend to be more religious than Europeans, and take their religious beliefs more seriously.

    2. Economic. European society was quite stratified. You were expected to be pretty much limited to your father's social status, and law and custom largely limited wealth to the aristocrats and royalty. A commoner could acquire land and wealth, but it was much harder to do so, and his position was much more precarious. The Americas offered a great deal of land free for the taking, with the real possibilty of economic independence if not actual wealth to whoever was willing to take the risk and do the work.

    3. Freedom/independence/self determination. See Number 2, above. Also, there was the added possibility of glory for the conqueror, explorer or the man who brought back great wealth or territory for the Crown. Some were no doubt drawn by the lack of direct supervision by the English authorities. Certainly, the adventurer types weren't always terribly concerned with the letter of the law. There were also some political refugees, and no doubt, the younger sons of the aristocracy who hoped to establish a power base for themselves. These soon made their own way into the frontier society, or in some extreme cases were driven back to Europe.

    However, the more numerous average common farmer was also largely freed from the demands of those placed above him in Britain, and that freedom was quickly cherished and taken for granted. Demands for a 'piece of the pie' from a Crown that appeared to do little for him and showed him no respect in the process did not go over well.

    We say here that "all politics are local." A voter's motivations are usually driven by issues that directly affect him and his family.

    A family farmer in Virginia had little in common with a farmer in say, East Anglia or Kent. He had no taxes to speak of, or landlord, or anything like similar local authorities. His sole concern was to produce sufficient crops to feed his family plus an excess to sell for the tools and goods he couldn't make or grow himself. He would be a member in good standing with his church, and that usually formed the basis for his social support system and friendships.

    On the frontiers, you could add the concern with protection from Indian (or French or Spanish) raiders, which emphatically wasn't going to come from the British Army or the Royal Navy.

    The 'split' you speak of, MB_Avro, usually occured within two years of crossing the Atlantic in most cases.

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

  4. #194
    MB_Avro_UK's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,978
    hi horseback,

    Thanks for the helpful post

    Your Para 2) I think is important.I can understand the motives !!

    Maybe I should emigrate??

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    Share this post

  5. #195
    If you can wait until December, the National Army Museum in Chelsea is staging an American revolutionary event -

    http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/whatsOn/familyEve...christmasRevolution/

    It's well worth popping along there anyway - some great exhibits.
    Share this post

  6. #196
    SkyChimp's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,894
    I don't speak freaky deaky Dutch.

    Share this post

  7. #197
    MLudner's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,414
    Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
    MLudner...many thanks for your informed replies

    I'm also interested in the 'mindset' of the Colonists.

    It has been mentioned that those of English origin (what would be their percentage of all European immigrants?)emigrated from England as they were not satisfied perhaps with the social/political 'status-quo' in England.

    Were many other English immigrants perhaps seeking economic opportunities in America and were they perhaps the majority?

    In other words,was there a 'split' of ideology towards the war between those English who had left for economic aspirations and those who had left for political aspirations?

    From what I am beginning to realise,the War of Independence was perhaps a complex issue and not a simple 'Red v Blue' situation.(Apologies for making an IL2 term of comparison!).

    If there was a 'split', what were the effects after the war? And was there significant English/British immigration to America after the war?

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    Horseback was able to reply faster, and accurately as well.

    I will try to stick to those things he did not cover.

    The mindset was dependent on the basic view to which the individual prescribed, much like politics today. Roughly a third of the Colonists were Patriots who actively participated in the Revolution in one way or another, another third were Tories who remained loyal to the Crown and England. The other third were in-between. In the early part of the war they tended to lean toward the Crown, but as the War progressed and the Patriots began to gain victories and it looked like final victory might be possible they tended to lean toward the Patriots.

    Immigration statistics were not kept in those times like they are today, so it would be quite difficult to come to an understanding of the make-up of immigrants; especially since immigration was completely unregulated in those times and no one was really counting.

    However, after the War most Tories moved to Canada .... which was just fine with the Patriots who thought that was where they belonged anyway .... with the French ...... and now we know why Canada is what it is today. ( Tongue-in-cheek, ay, I'm only kidding, ay, so don't get all bent out of shape, then, ay)

    I do not think that the English formed a significant proportion of immigrants after Independence, but they're still moving here to this day. The reasons the English were coming here are pretty much the same as all of the others: More freedom, better chance to make a good living or flat-out get rich, become a land-owner, escape persecution and/or oppression.

    Some of your questions really cannot be answered in any scientific manner, but only with conjecture. In those days statistics were not kept like they are now. Markets were unregulated and people pretty much just went about their business, some succeeding and others failing, and personal lives. People came and went as they came and went and life went on.


    I won't be around this weekend, and I'll be a busy, busy bee early next week. Good weekend to everyone
    Share this post

  8. #198
    Some good stuff coming out here, guys.



    In particular, excellent last post from horseback and good supplement from MLudner.

    Thinking about all this, it wasn't just the Americas that British migrants were going to, of course. Among others, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia also come to mind.

    Although the early ships to my home country Australia, for example, contained significant numbers of convicts (more unwilling migrants!), free settlers from Great Britain and Ireland followed in considerably greater numbers, founding the colonies that were destined to federate in 1901.


    But for sheer numbers, I think the tide of human migration from Britain and Europe to the Americas, over five centuries, makes all the others look fairly small. Considerable risk for most, failure for some, but the chance for a new and better life, in a 'new world', with new rules!

    And just think, how profoundly and completely has it shaped the World we live in today?


    Best regards to all,
    panther3485
    Share this post

  9. #199
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    Very complex indeed and needing some corrections and caveats.

    Depending on decade and century conditions varied widely.
    Early on, 16th century it was near a death sentence for large numbers of immigrants. Average
    life span very short, life brutal. But be young enough and lucky enough and work hard you get
    something. First Jamestown colony, everyone died.
    17th century still very hard except maybe some places where enough people supported each other.
    18th century and some places pleasant by euro standards but still very rough and frontier where
    a not rich could make a place was hard living.

    Much of the land was owned through large, really massive grants by kings and parcelled out.
    The families that got the upper hand then are still mostly well off today. The small farmer
    had to buy or sharecrop from those. You could always move farther out or get marginal land.

    Whatever you did, you had to compete with the big guys. It did not help that what you sold
    was devalued and what you bought came dear and taxed heavier and heavier. Compete and that!
    Yeah, the really rugged took what they could carry or pack out and went total self-survival
    at least until they could return to 'civilization' with a load of high value items like furs
    if they didn't get killed over those. There were many French who did exactly that for long
    periods and got along well with many of the native peoples. Not just French but I look at
    the extent of French penetration into the continent and I think they were the most but perhaps
    that's just from more records and maybe early access to rivers that went deep.

    Yet city life as established was not so rough especially as time went and in many ways I
    think I would have preferred to Europe where pollution was a problem at least before sewers
    and septic were I dunno either invented or put to use. There is a reason why the wine was
    mixed in the water where it was crowded there between taste and microbes. I am not making
    that up either! Not everywhere but not just a few little places was that true, too many
    people for the land and technology to drink freely rivers and streams. I would move away
    if I could and never have I understood how people could let that be here as well, but greed
    and stupidity have their way.

    I've read that one French governor went out to Quebec and when they got there his wife went
    right back to France and joined a convent! That was at the time equivalent to divorce. How
    rough the frontier was is very hard to exaggerate at all. And all those decades there was
    always a frontier as rough and rougher than most could take.

    Who wants to emigrate? Many did but find population numbers and out of Europe it was not a
    flood by any means.

    Germans to Penns Woods yes. There was also a large percent of Swedes in Delaware with the
    blood still much in evidence. German and Swedish also in much of Maryland. I know that
    Kentucky had and still has much German blood. It must be hidden or something how much of
    German came to and multiplied the middle at the least but then through WWI and WWII if you
    were german blood then you did not advertise wisely. Sometimes PA seems half German and
    a lot of Swedish. But then I've seen a lot of Hungarian too from mid-PA and west. They
    all did settle strongly, get along and lived safer and good prosperous. The famous Kentucky
    and Pennsylvania Rifles were made by those immigrants and their descendants even long before
    the revolution as the best IMO skills and craftsmen in those areas also came. Lot of iron
    and coal in the Appalachian Mountains as well as virgin hardwood right at hand. Given a
    good community the roughness was not an imposition I am sure, that is why what decade and
    where is so important.

    Swedes also went into the north I am not sure how much later. In the far north of Maine
    they established New Sweden right out near the Alagash River but I don't know the year.
    It is some of the prettiest country I know and what they say is they called it that because
    it reminded them so much of Sweden itself. Wildlife, white birch, spruce, fir and pine and
    over 12 feet of snow falls in winter. Clean air and water, what is not to love? LOL!

    And as far as French-English and Canada and how it is today? When the English took over
    Canada it went VERY BAD for the French. Many families were broken up, children and parents.
    Many fathers and brothers killed. How much over allegiance to crown and how much over
    religion I don't know for sure but up that way even to the 1960's and 70's it is not jokes
    about race but French and English -- I grew up with this. Church was not something to make
    jokes of, it was a division for many and still may be but not so much as the rest of the
    world keeps moving in. When we buried my Father and were over in New Brunswick with French
    friends, one of his old buddies asked me directly did he really feel as he had said? Yes
    he did very much love those people I don't have room to say, but with the religious gulf they
    lived with Colin still had to ask. My Father was a very intelligent and reasonable man.
    Back in the history, when the English went and did that there were many French who stayed
    even subjugated and kept the land but whole broken masses fled west along the Saint John
    and then south clear down the Mississippi to mix with native and some part Spanish blood
    there, and other French still. Where else did Creole come from, eh?

    More mixed bag, before the colonies of other Euros formed east there were already over 2/3
    of a million with Spanish blood in the New World all through the Carribean, into South and
    Central America and Mexico. They did not just stop there.

    How do all these get along? Sometimes they did and sometimes it was blood. When a monarchy
    or family or religion or money enters into it be sure there was suffering. And the big-time
    losers still screwed over are you-know-who that was here before all that started. I would
    feel a lot worse for them except long before they did likewise to the ones they invaded in
    less formal fashion, as those had also done the same to the true Native Americans. But then
    from anthroplogy I think there is not much of the world at all where the original people are
    still in control of their first home and not conquered and blended out. Good thing from a
    biological POV but not the best thing to say of humanity.

    Perhaps the most complex thing is that it's worked as well as it has and not so far?
    Share this post

  10. #200
    Hi there, WWMaxGunz

    Very interesting post, thanks for that.

    Yes, 500 years, migrants from so many countries and for so many reasons, huge variations in conditions and circumstances, huge range of possible outcomes.

    A vast subject I think, and one worthy of volumes of books and more. Doubt if we could really do it justice here, eh?



    Best regards,
    panther3485
    Share this post