Early on in the 20th
Century, the several world naval powers recognized the growing threat of the
submarine to capital ships and commerce.
The United States’ early efforts took the form of unarmored but speedy
gun boats armed with depth charges and small caliber guns. It soon became apparent that a larger vessel
with greater capabilities and range was needed.
By 1910 a destroyer concept was developed and a number of vessels with
varying capabilities emerged. The USS
Paulding, DD-22, on which my father served, was one of these early destroyers,
an old photo of which hangs over my desk together with a photo of my father in
his Chief Petty Officer uniform.
The success of the
destroyer was phenomenal through World War – II evolving into many variations
needed to satisfy a number of requirements.
By the post-WW-II era the destroyer had grown tremendously in size,
speed and armament such that it began to rival the light cruiser. Annual budget battles in Congress made it
clear that destroyer design considerations had to be reconsidered. The navy responded by creating a new, smaller
class of vessel, the Frigate, a class of vessel that dated to the
post-revolution era.
The first modern Frigates
were commissioned in 1963 with the addition of two vessels to the fleet. During the next ten years the navy received
about fifty additional vessels. By 1989
the Frigate fleet consisted of more than 100 vessels. The Frigates included a
propulsion system consisting of two aircraft type of jet engine with a third
engine carried on the overhead as a spare.
Jet engines require large volumes of clean, dry air to function
properly. For a naval vessel operating
in all manner of sea conditions, the air intakes of the vessel must deliver the
needed air requirements without moisture or salt found in heavy seas. Salt would abrade the turbine blades and
corrode the system and moisture would reduce the power output of the engines. The addition of Frigates to the fleet
permitted the navy to meet their naval require-ments with fewer of the more
expensive destroyers.
Delivering dry, clean air
to the turbines required the installation of highly specialized filters to the
engine intakes. The only manufacturer of
such equipment that I am aware of is the Parm-atic Filter Corporation of
Parsippany, NJ, an American firm with Canadian roots. I was
to join this firm in 1984.
While at Parmatic , the
Canadian government, a member of NATO, agreed to add 12 Frigates to its fleet
and to modernize several existing Frigates of an older design. Through NATO they were aware of the Parmatic
filter and requested that the U.S. government authorize the incorporation of
the Parmatic filter in the new Canadian vessels. Agreement was reached and in 1985 Canada contracted
to build six Frigates with a second six in 1987, with all 12 vessels having the
Parmatic filter.
And so in 1985 I
frequently found myself at the Saint John Shipyards of New Brunswick, Canada.
First, Saint John, New
Brunswick should not be confused with St. John, Newfoundland which is further
north. Saint John is a big tourist
attraction and has much to offer especially in the warm weather. Winter visits are another matter, however. While I spent many visits during the more
temperate days, it was my unfortunate experience to spend most of my time at Saint
John in the dead of winter with its unpredictable snows.
During one of my earlier
visits my Canadian host and I, while returning from lunch, decided that it was
such a nice day we would take a leisurely walk through an older part of Saint
John in- stead of returning immediately to the office. Our walk took us through what first appeared
to be a small pocket park having a number of old shade trees. As we moved through the “park” it became
evident that we really were in an old cemetery.
My companion explained that we were at a burial ground for the many Loyalists
driven from the United States after the victorious re-volution against Great
Britain during the Revolutionary War. It’s
hard for me to describe the feelings that washed over me at the news. Here I was in a foreign land standing among
the graves of people who were as American as I, and yet who died away from
their chosen country. In many ways they
were more American than I since my status was primarily an accident of birth. It sparked my interest in the emigration that
had never interested me before. It may
be that history is usually written by the victors, but without question the Loyalists,
or Tories if you prefer, could not be considered victors by any method of
measure. Yet, some authors have re-
searched the Loyalist exodus and there is a record, such as it is.
In the American Civil War
of the 1860s, bad blood and bitterness were common and shared equally by the
military and civilian populations of both the Union and Confederate
forces. How-ever, when the war ended the
compassion and sympathy of President Lincoln and General Grant permitted a
number of benefits for the defeated Confederates which were designed to ease
their transition from war-time conditions to the beginnings of a normal
civilian life. Un-fortunately, the
administration of President Andrew Johnson did not continue these ben-evolent
efforts after the assassination of Lincoln.
When the Revolutionary War
ended, a war that some historians refer to as the first American civil war,
there was little or no sympathy by the victories Patriots for the
Loyalists. In place of a program similar
to that of Lincoln and Grant, the Loyalists were subjected to many actions,
some life threatening, designed to drive them from the American colonies.
The Encyclopedia
Britannica provides the most complete description of what constituted a
Loyalist during pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary times:
“Loyalists constituted
about one-third of the population of the American colonies during that
conflict. They were not confined to any particular group or class, but their
numbers were strongest among the following groups: officeholders and others who
served the British crown and had a vested interest in upholding its authority;
Anglican clergymen and their parishioners in the North, who had likewise taken
vows of allegiance and obedience to the king; Quakers, members of German
religious sects, and other conscientious pacifists; and large landholders, especially
in the North, and wealthy merchant groups in the cities whose businesses and
property were affected by the war. The most common trait among all loyalists
was an innate conservatism coupled with a deep devotion to the mother country
and the crown. Many loyalists at first urged moderation in the struggle for
colonial rights and were only driven into active loyalism by radical fellow
colonists who denounced as Tories all who would not join them. Loyalists were
most numerous in the South, New York, and Pennsylvania, but they did not
constitute a majority in any colony. New York was their stronghold and had more
than any other colony. New England had fewer loyalists than any other section.
“The loyalists did not
rise as a body to support the British army, but individuals did join the army
or form their own guerrilla units. New York alone furnished about 23,000
loyalist troops, perhaps as many as all the other colonies combined. The
loyalist fighters aroused a vengeful hatred among the patriots (as the American
Revolutionaries called themselves), and when taken in battle they were treated
as traitors. George Washington detested them, saying as early as 1776 that
“they were even higher and more insulting in their opposition than the
regulars.”
How did we ever arrive at
such a state?
When the Americas were
discovered during the 15th Century, the general feeling was that the
explorers had entered upon a lush land that was sparsely settled by nomadic tribes
and be- longed to no one. While that may
have been an original position, the later discovery of the many existing
cultures and their treasures, such as the Mayan, Aztec, Aleut, Incas, Inuit and
the more loosely organized tribes of Native American Indians, to name just a
few, had a profound effect on the decisions
of the explorers from primarily England, France, Spain, Portugal and The
Netherlands to appropriate and colonize the rich new world. By the 17th Century all five
countries were well established in the newly discovered lands and were harvesting
its riches for regular shipments home to their respective monarchs.
Historians disagree on
whether the population of the Americas during pre-Columbus time, the time after
the last ice-age through the 15th Century discoveries, should be
measured in the millions or in the
tens of millions, but they unquestionably agree that pre-Columbus America was not the sparsely inhabited land first
thought by most.
Once the colonization door
was opened, movement to the New World became a flood. Based on the discoveries of Henry Hudson, an
English sea captain working for the Dutch during the early 17th century
established a colony called New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island of what is now
New York City. Under heavy pressure from
Great Britain, the Dutch later ceded title of New Amsterdam to England. Spain moved into Florida, Spain and Portugal
jointly colonized the Caribbean Sea islands, and Central and South America.
Their competition became so intense that they were on the verge of war when the
Pope intervened and an agreement was reached where Portugal acquired Brazil and
Spain took possession of most of the balance of South America. Britain
concentrated its colonies above New Amsterdam through New England into Canada
and between New Amsterdam and Florida. France colonized parts of central and
eastern North America, and France and England jointly acquired parts of the
Caribbean and Atlantic islands. For the interested
reader, there is my earlier essay, Populating
the New World, prepared in February 2010 which describes in more detail the
nature and mix of the colonists.
With the acquisition of
New Amsterdam, England had crown colonies along most of the Atlantic coast of
North America from the Canadian Maritimes south through Georgia. Florida remained with Spain. Land grants were negotiated by England with
individuals and organizations to de-velop and colonize the lands. In a number of cases, grants made to
favorites of the court were contracted to third parties who acted as agents of
the favored for a fee or a part of the grant.
In such cases the original recipients of the grant rarely set foot in
the New World choosing instead to remain in comfort in England enjoying the
returns from their agents. From these
grants and additional negotiations with the local Indian tribes, farms,
businesses and industries were developed and towns and cities sprung up
throughout the colonies.
The British differed from
the other colonizing countries in that they permitted, in fact, expected the
British colonists to organize and maintain militias from the ranks of the
colonists for their own defense and security.
British troops were not permanently stationed in the colonies prior to
the French and Indian War, an important fact that had great import during the
18th century.
Most pre-Revolutionary War
colonists considered themselves as British.
They respected English law and had no desire to change their status or
rebel against their king. In many ways
they en-joyed a better lifestyle than their counterparts in Britain, best of
all, for the most part they governed themselves and that, in itself, could be
the major reason for the war that followed. Think of a child having been permitted to having
his own way suddenly subjected to many limiting rules and restrictions.
West and north of the
English colonies were large French territories known as New France which ran
roughly on a north-south line in the Appalachian Mountains, the eastern edge
forming the western border of the English colonies. Within these French territories was the Ohio
Valley, a rich source of fur animals, a well-known fact to the English
colonists who regularly supported large numbers of trappers and trading
companies to enter New France and harvest the fur animals by trapping or by
trading with the Indians. In turn,
British companies supported the colonists through direct ownership of the
trapper organizations or by trading with the trappers. The profits for England were substantial.
Eventually, France became
aware of the trespassing of their territories and at first dispatched lightly
armed patrols to warn away the trespassers.
Britain recognized the potential danger of continued uncontrolled
entrance of the colonists into New France and made an effort to re-strict
entrance, though many believed that it was done with tongue in cheek. Reduced access to the Ohio Valley by the
colonists meant reduced profits for the British. Nothing changed, in fact, border disputes
increased and France introduced armed patrols to the territories in an effort to
protect her interests. Britain, in turn,
felt obligated to deploy a number of regulars to the colonies to maintain an
uneasy peace and to defend against Indian attacks allegedly caused by colonists
cheating them in fur trades.
In 1754, an armed patrol
of Virginia militia under the command of Major (or Lt. Col.) George Washington
entered Pennsylvania territory claimed by the French and engaged one of the
French patrols in an unprovoked attack
killing 10 members and their commander.
During the two years that
followed the described incident, both sides managed to avoid a major clash, but
in 1756 war was declared and became known as the French and Indian War or the
Seven Years War when tied to existing wars on the European continent. France’s lofty objective was to drive the
British and other non-French colonists from America and extend its authority
from its power-base in Canada. Spain
joined France in 1762 by creating a second front from Florida. The British response to France was to
increase its force of regulars to 10,000 to which it added large numbers of
colonist militia. The war ended in 1763
when British forces captured Quebec and then Montreal. The loss of their major bastions prevented
France from continuing the fight and they resigned.
The Treaty of Paris
stripped France of all its colonies in America:
France lost Canada and the French territories east of the Mississippi River,
but retained New Orleans for access to its western territories. France also retained some small Atlantic Ocean
coastal islands and received the Caribbean Islands of Martinique and
Guadeloupe. Spain lost Florida, but
received Cuba. Both France and Spain retained
their respective territories west of the Mississippi River.
With the end of the war,
Great Britain became the dominant power in America. It now control-led half of America: All of the land from the eastern seaboard west
to the Mississippi River, from the Arctic Ocean south to the Caribbean Sea, and
the major Atlantic Ocean islands of Bermuda and the Bahamas.
Severe as were the losses
to France and Spain, the big losers from the war were the American Indian
nations that had opposed Britain and its colonists.
With the wars behind them
the British taxpayer was faced with a major economic problem. The European conflicts had imposed a
crippling debt on England of which they were aware, but they were now being
told of the added cost of their nation’s latest victory. The Seven Years War had added 150 million
pounds ($280,500.00) to the nation’s existing debt. True, the treasures they had gained, when
realized, would more than compensate the nation, but those treasures were in
the future while the war debts were today’s problem. There were rumblings among the British
taxpayers and the British parliament decided that since the colonists were
largely to benefit from the war, they should assume some responsibility for the
debt.
Complicating the
collection of taxes in the colonies was the extent of corruption. It was costing more to collect taxes than the
amount of taxes received. In effect, the
British taxpayer was subsidizing the colonists who were paying only one
twenty-sixth of that by the British. In
1764 and 1765, parliament imposed taxes on sugar, coffee, indigo and some wines
while barring the importation of rum and some French wines. They also passed the Stamp Act which taxed
every piece of paper used, including documents, licenses, newspapers and
playing cards and the Quartering Act which required colonists to provide
British soldiers with bedding, cooking
utensils, firewood, beer or cider, and candles. The act was later altered to include
billeting for soldiers. In 1767, the
parliament passed the Townshend Act which taxed glass, lead, paint, paper and
tea. A second law authorized blank search
warrants.
Concurrent with the
passing of the new tax laws were a number of restrictions imposed on the
colonists in an effort to reduce expenditures:
- · “The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land to stop spiraling defense costs and adding to the debt burden.
- · “The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for furs.
- · “They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery that was costing the exchequer so much money.
- · “They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.”
Colonist protests started
in 1766 with the Quartering Act. In
1770, Britain provided local Boston officials with additional soldiers in an
effort to curb protests. Boston massacre
resulted.
Britain amended the
revenue laws on all but tea in 1770. In
1773 Britain passed the Tea Act which gave the Tories the exclusive right as
tea merchants.
From 1772 colonist
protests escalated and became uglier.
Rhode Island fired on the HMS St. John and burned the HMS Gaspee;
Patriots, disguised as Indians, boarded British vessels in Boston and dumped
the tea in the harbor; Patriots in 1774 captured a fort in New Hampshire and
seized its arms. Boston became a British
Army garrison. In 1775 the colonists
battled the British at Boston, Lexington and Concord, captured Fort Ticonderoga
and captured another warship in Machias, Maine, but failed in an attempt to
capture Quebec. The following year the
Patriots laid siege to Boston forcing the British troops and Tories to evacuate
Boston and sail for Halifax.
In 1776 the Continental
Congress declared independence.
In his article Buried
History of the American Revolution, the author presents a strongly biased
view of the Loyalists’ experiences during and after the revolution, though much
of what he describes is probably true.
Loyalists held allegiance
to King George, but their immigration roots reflect broad diversity:
German 28% Dutch
8%
Scottish 23% French
5%
English
18% Welch
4%
Irish 12% Switzerland,
Denmark and Sweden 2%
An additional equal number
of Loyalists were of African origin.
Loyalists were about 40%
of the total colonist population, but there were pockets of Loyalists at
greater percentages, such as Long Island where the Loyalists were at 90%. Loyalists depended upon the British for
protection, but formed their own defensive units when harassed by the Patriots. About 15,000 joined the British army as
provincials and another 10,000 served with Loyalist militia. Loyalists started to enter Canada during the
late 18th century in varying numbers. The Loyalists that fled America went mostly
to Canada, but others went to Britain, Bermuda, Bahamas, Florida (then
British), and many other locations in the Caribbean and Central America. In 1781 a fleet of 20 vessels carried 7,000
Loyalists from New York City to Canada where they had been promised land to
compensate them for their abandoned American properties. The New York evacuation was followed by similar
evacuations from Savannah and Charleston.
Most of the population of Vermont had not been active during the
revolution on either side, but when given the option 8,000 moved to eastern
townships in Canada. Another 4,000 hardy
souls traveled through New York State to settle in the wilds of Kingston and Niagara
forming the nucleus of what is now Ontario.
The Treaty of Paris in 1783,
signed by delegates from America, Great Britain, France, Spain and the
Netherlands, ended the war. The last
British soldiers left from New York City for Canada with about 30,000
Loyalists. In 1784, after Congress
ratified the treaty, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 had left for Canada, though
this number can be questioned.
Bibliography
Allen, Thomas B. Fighting for the King in Americas First
Civil War.
Jasanoff, Maya. Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary
World.
Cremona, Leonard F. Populating the New World: February 2010.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate
Reference Suite. Chicago 2008.
January 2013
LFC
No comments:
Post a Comment