Talk:United Empire Loyalist
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 untitled
- 2 Loyalist Settlements
- 3 Complete rewrite
- 4 'Forced to leave'?
- 5 U.E. is not the only hereditary title in Canada
- 6 Merge to?
- 7 Title granted vs. hereditary title
- 8 NPOV
- 9 Loyalist Township
- 10 Lord Dorchester
- 11 POV, Lacking Sources
- 12 Merger proposal
- 13 "Offer to free land"
- 14 Wyandot Loyalists Links
This could use some cleanup IMO. It is very pro-British/Canadian; such comments as the part of the Empire that Britain "happily retained" reflect only one side; many Americans were vastly disturbed by this (and the War of 1812 was a partial result). I don't really want to see this tagged right now, but it needs cleanup, which I think would be better done by a fair-minded Canadian most likely. Rlquall 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) It is not very biased, because if you look into more detail, you will find much of the information to be true. The Loyalists were definitely not all in the right, but the Colonists did inflict much harm on them. We are worrying about fact, not about feelings. I do not mean to use harsh words, but, as I said, if you do more research you will find much of this info to be true.
Though it was made a viable town by the Loyalists, Saint John, New Brunswick had an almost continued Western presence from... 1638, I think? With Fort LaTour and later Fort Frederick. Can it really be called a Loyalist settlement? I mean we obviously play up our Loyalist history but Saint John has a history of a century and a half before the Loyalists showed up.
I agree with the previous comment. In fact, this article largely duplicates (sometimes word-for-word) the more general Loyalist (American Revolution) article. As a result, I've removed the old text and rewritten it to include only UEL-specific information, with a link to the more general article for the full history and background of all Loyalists. I've also tried to keep the language as neutral as possible. David Megginson
'Forced to leave'?
Were they forced to leave the USA, or did they choose to out of opposition to the new country? Jeff Worthington 16:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- There was immense Loyalist-Patriot animosity, IIRC, so much that it often wasn't safe to be openly loyalist.-LtNOWIS
- It was very not safe. Loyalists (Tories as they are called from the American perspective) were lucky if they were tarred and feathered. Most of the time they were just murdered outright, as I understand it. -chaleur
23:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- no they were NOT murdered and 80% chose to stay in the US and become US citizens
U.E. is not the only hereditary title in Canada
The title 'U.E.' is not the only hereditary title in Canada. There are a few members of the nobility including the Baron de Longueuil & Lord Thomson of Fleet, plus a few Baronets as well. - (Aidan Work 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
---Obviously not. The Queen of Canada is a hereditary title, and a Canadian one. But Lord Thomson of Fleet's title was not a Canadian title, it was British, and he had to become a British citizen to accept the title. Baron de Longueuil is genuinely a Canadian title.
- Technically are not all hereditary titles in Canada British? Baron de Longueuil's title was accepted by the British as a legitimate title in the nineteenth century was it not? Although I suppose that since as I understand it Lord Thomson of Fleet's title is in Britain (as opposed to say the Baron Beaverbrook's title which is in New Brunswick) it would be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawjam (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that only British citizens can hold hereditary titles. So if a non-British citizen is knighted, they don't get to add any honorifics before or after their name. The same should hold for Canadians without dual citizenship regardless of when the title was granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we merge this with Loyalist (American Revolution)? I'm finding difficulty seeing much material here that wouldn't be equally relevant there, and as people add more material there's a constant likelihood of duplication. What do you think? QuartierLatin1968
- I don't think so. While there would be a lot of overlap between the articles, the UELs played major roles in Canadian history for many years after their arrival that had nothing to do with the American Revolution. The Loyalist (American Revolution) article should be about the Loyalist in the States up to the end of the Revolution, whereas this article should be about the Loyalist in Canada up to and including this century. --Arctic Gnome 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Title granted vs. hereditary title
There's a distinct difference between a "title granted to a Canadian" and a "Canadian hereditary title". I'm not sure how to phrase this properly...maybe someone else can jump in. --chaleur
El bien mas preciado es la libertad 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where to get that NPOV thing but this article should have it. Repressive laws established by the Continental Congress? The name "United Empire Loyalists" is questionable too. The subjects of the article are properly referred to as Tories. I guess things might be different in Canada, but why should this article be propaganda glorifying Britain and villifying the American Revolution. Even in America, the values of the Revolution are not believed in, and it is sad that it is criticized on an "unbiased" encyclopedia. 18.104.22.168 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've never heard of them being called anything other than "United Empire Loyalists" for the last 150 years. In popular usage, at least in Canada, the term "Tories" has referred exclusively to the political party. --Arctic Gnome 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 22.214.171.124 wrote "I guess things might be different in Canada, but why should this article be propaganda glorifying Britain and villifying the American Revolution?" I would think the reply to this would be obvious to anyone familiar with the deep imprint the UELs made on Canadian life and history. The Imprint made by the UELs is so great that merging with the American article is not only pointless and misleading, but rather insulting to the memory of the people who were essentially the founders of Canada. TrulyTory 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- 'Tory' in the US is basically a derogatory term; the Secesh also used it to refer insultingly to Unionists during the Civil War. And as TrulyTory points out, Tory generally means something quite different in Canada.
- People of a great many backgrounds have contributed to the founding of Canada. Champlain and Frontenac were no less important in this regard than Simcoe and Wentworth... and for my part, I'd also put in a good word for Louis Riel and Pontiac. (On which note, happy Canada Day, everybody!) QuartierLatin1968 23:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That is your POV. The fact is that English Canada and the relsultant Majority Anglophone and English Civic Culture of Canada begins with the arrival of the Loyalists. Disparage the result all you want, but the fact remains. Riel was not a founder of Canada, he was a founder of The Republic Of Manitoba or some such thing. He certainly is an important historical figure in the development of Manitoba and Canada, but he is not a Founder of anything but revolution on the Prairies. TrulyTory 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe it should be made mention of Loyalist Township (outside of Kingston.) The township plays host to several key UEL historical significants and as well hosts the gates of the Loyalist Parkway Does anyone else believe we should include this? Thanks, --Aleeproject 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed the dubious "legal" opinion regarding the use of the post-nominal letters U.E., since the writer based their judgement (that use of UE outside of Quebec is invalid, since Lord Dorchester was only Governor of Quebec). In fact, Lord Dorchester also served as Governor General of British North America, in which role he would have been acting in a vice-regal capacity for all of the colonies in what is now Canada.
The United Empire Loyalists, in many respects were the "Pilgrims" of Canada. The UEL were certainly not the first peoples to arrive in British North America (today's Canada), but they were important founding peoples. They escaped the American colonies in the tens of thousands, taking with them precious little of their possessions. (They left their homes and businesses, and received no compensation.) Small wonder that in 1812, these UEL and their descendants, along with other Canadian settlers and native Indians, chose to remain loyal to the British Crown and defend against the numerically superior American forces. At the end of the American Revolution, in the U.S.A, the UEL may have been considered traitors, but north of the border they were considered British patriots. Que-Can 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
POV, Lacking Sources
This article needs to be heavily revised. A lot of point of view, several un-sourced statistics and factual claims, and it's just in general not up to quality standards expected of wiki articles. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- If this could be done without very much change to the topic, that would be fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJaEpp (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is a duplication of topic, and is thus WP:CSD A10 qualified. There doesn't seem to be any new information either. I'ven't seen the term "Loyalists of North America" and google only brings up 6 hits, all of the Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"Offer to free land"
"to an offer of free land in British North America" is a manipulative if not pejorative expression. It is a proven fact that Britain paid compensation to the ones who were loyal to her and had lost their home and possessions in the U.S. due to their loyal behavior. The ones who came for "free land" and could not prove that they had been loyal to Britain but came for freebies only were rejected. More background info at www.uelac.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4905:A162:743A:E8E8:D18A:ED0D (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Canadian historians are the onew who say the British government offered "free land grants" to the Loyalists. eg Robert Allen (1982). Loyalist Literature: An Annotated Bibliographic Guide to the Writings on the Loyalists of the American Revolution. Dundurn. p. 44. Rjensen (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Wyandot Loyalists Links
http://www.wyandotte-nation.org/traditions/biographical-panels/catherine-johnson/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)