About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Repurposing an old insult
Author: TriSec    Date: 08/09/2025 12:52:47

Good Morning.

250 years ago, Boston was at war. We had already had Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. The rebels had laid Boston under siege by now, and the peninsula was cut off from all land access. Britain though, controlled the sea.


The Greater Boston area, and much of the Original 13 Colonies, was starting to align along "party lines", for lack of a better term. Of course, we remember the old terminology from our history book. Let's take a look at some of the names from those days. Back when the definitions were simpler - "Minuteman" and "Tea Party" had not yet been corrupted.

We'll start with the winning side, who we call "Patriots" today. Of course the name lives on in the region via sport, whether you love them or hate them. "Minuteman" is a popular schoolboy team name around here - Both Lexington High School and Umass Amherst bear the name on the field. We still look askance at those overweight, middle-aged, white guys in Arizona that pretend they know what they are doing with the name. But delving a little deeper via Wikipedia - there's a whole lot more to it.


Patriots (also known as Revolutionaries, Continentals, Rebels, or Whigs) were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who opposed the Kingdom of Great Britain's control and governance during the colonial era and supported and helped launch the American Revolution that ultimately established American independence. Patriot politicians led colonial opposition to British policies regarding the American colonies, eventually building support for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted unanimously by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.

After the American Revolutionary War began the year before, in 1775, many patriots assimilated into the Continental Army, which was commanded by George Washington and which ultimately secured victory against the British Army, leading the British to end their involvement in the war and acknowledge the sovereign independence of the colonies, reflected in the Treaty of Paris, which led to the establishment of the United States in 1783.

The patriots were inspired by English and American republican ideology that was part of the Age of Enlightenment, and rejected monarchy and aristocracy and supported individual liberty and natural rights and legal rights. Prominent patriot political theorists, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine, spearheaded the American Enlightenment, which was in turn inspired by European thinkers such as Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Though slavery existed in all of the Thirteen Colonies prior to the American Revolution, the issue divided patriots, with some supporting its abolition while others espoused proslavery thought.

The patriots included members of every social and ethnic group in the colonies, though support for the patriot cause was strongest in the New England Colonies and weakest in the Southern Colonies. The American Revolution divided the colonial population into three groups: patriots, who supported the end of British rule; loyalists, who supported Britain's continued control over the colonies; and those who remained neutral.


Not everybody in the Colonies opposed the crown, though. Even here where it began, many in the city remained deeply divided. A famous case is the noted painter John Singleton Copley. If you don't know his name, you do know his best-known work. This is how we know what Paul Revere looked like.

https://ka-perseus-images.s3.amazonaws.com/b8f252bc223f45612bb7de30dc20b52151e21421.jpg


The original painting remains in the city, part of the large Copley Gallery at our Museum of Fine Arts. Copley himself though, remained loyal to the crown and left Boston for England before things really got hot, in 1774. Although mostly beloved in this city today, back then he would have derisively been called a "Loyalist".


Loyalist was the term of self-identification for British subjects in the Thirteen Colonies of British America who remained loyal to the British crown. It was initially coined in 1774 when political tensions rose prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution and throughout the period. They were often also referred to as Tories, Royalists, or King's Men at the time. Those supporting the revolution self-identified as Patriots or Whigs, and considered Loyalists "persons inimical to the liberties of America."

Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the Crown. The British government acted in expectation of that, especially during the Southern campaigns of 1780 and 1781. Britain was able to effectively protect the people only in areas where they had military control, thus the number of military Loyalists was significantly lower than what had been expected. Loyalists were often under suspicion of those in the British military, who did not know whom they could fully trust in such a conflicted situation; they were often looked down upon.

Patriots watched suspected Loyalists very closely and would not tolerate any organized Loyalist opposition. Many outspoken or militarily active Loyalists were forced to flee, especially to their stronghold of New York City. William Franklin, the royal governor of New Jersey and son of Patriot leader Benjamin Franklin, became the leader of the Loyalists after his release from a Patriot prison in 1778. He worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war.


The divisions were deep and bitter - in some ways the precursor of the better known "Brother against Brother" trope of the Civil war. You read it - Founding Father Benjamin Franklin's own son was a Loyalist. Ben himself famously remarked "We must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately", and it was an actual possibility that the son could have executed the father for treason had things gone the other way.

A quarter-millenium later, have things really changed? We're actually past the crossroads, as the tyrant King Donald has taken us deeper into autocracy and fascism. He is no President or King, but Potentate may be a better title these days. The United States as we knew it is deeply Balkanized today. My deep-blue Commonwealth of Massachusetts has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON with equally deep-red places in other parts of the country. I will continue to advocate for the dissolution of these United States as it stands today. Another President eloquently defended the Union, but can we actually do this today? [parphrased]:


"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half MAGA and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of Trumpism, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?


Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

I know where I live that answer is yes. But so many other parts of this once-great land have fully embraced fascism - and are actively changing the rules to make it harder for the rest of us to resist.

In general, historically, things like this tend to end only one way.

https://d1oc7rwabkmy5g.cloudfront.net/uploads/published_image/the_image/2364320/thumb_1344_324244-146_01.jpg


 
 

2 comments (Latest Comment: 08/10/2025 14:53:28 by Will_in_Ca)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati