You would be amazed how many people ask me why I am on the British side when I am reenacting the War of American Independence. I have lots of answers to that question. Some sound flip but really are not. For instance:

• First and foremost, only 1/3 of the people in the colonies were in favor of separation; 1/3 were loyal to the King of England, and 1/3 didn't take any side (mostly the Pennsylvanian Germans)

• My mother is from England (Somerset) and I have a strong leaning toward my British side

• I am a sucker for the underdog

• The Yanks have to have someone to fight

• Loyalists (Tories) were there, and they need to be represented

• It's a natural extension of my French and Indian War unit, Rogers' Rangers—and remember, the F&I was a war of Britain and British colonists against France and French colonists—because in real life, many of Rogers' Rangers became the King's Rangers during the American War of Independence, fighting for Britain

It is a rarely-known fact outside of the 18thC reenacting world that only one-third of the population in the 1770s was in favour of a rebellion against the Mother Country. A full one-third was very much against it—while they might not always agree with British policies, they acknowledged that George was their King, they were subjects of Britain, and they did not think war against Britain was the right response. The final one-third of the people, especially in Pennsylvania, were waiting to see which side would win. Thus, while we are taught in schools that "everyone" was a rebel against the evil British, that simply was not true.

Most of the Regular units fighting for the British in the War of American Independence were brought over from Britain, and some had been in America since the French and Indian War. However, many people born in North America who were loyal to the Crown fought with the British Provincials in their own regiments. Thus, the battles were not always "Americans versus British." It was very likely to be American against American, friend against friend, and some cases of family against family. Many say this was the first American Civil War.

Those supporting the rebel cause made life very difficult for their loyalist neighbors, and probably vice versa. I don't know for a fact but I tend to believe Loyalists saw the Revolutionaries merely as misguided fellow citizens, while Revolutionaries saw Loyalists as the enemy. Many Loyalist families were driven from their homes, and/or were severely ostracized. While men were away fighting for the King, women and children were not allowed to obtain food and supplies from local merchants, and neighbors stopped helping them on their farms. They were driven into poverty and had to give up their property and home.  In the book Rising Above Circumstances, author Robert Rogers (a direct descendant of James Rogers) talks about the difficulties and near destitution the James Rogers' family faced while James was fighting with the King's Rangers. 

The Rebel-Loyalist political separation prompted the beginning of the British migration into Canada, which still had a mostly French population. Britain owned Canada through winning the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in North America), but the population was largely French and concentrated in the eastern province of Quebec. King George III allocated large tracts of land further west for resettling British citizens who were forced to leave the American colonies. They settled in the area around Toronto, and launched the population growth of English-speaking Canadians.

The Rogers families was amongst those forced to move. Just as with settlers coming from England, those moving into Canada named new places after their former homes. Near Toronto and the area where the Rogers were relocated is a town called Methuen. The Rogers sons Robert and James were born in Methuen, MA, and we like to speculate that they were responsible for naming the Canadian town of Methuen.

So, aside from the historical and personal reasons for my being on the British side, I also am on the Loyalist side for the sake of reenacting itself. I have heard from people who were involved in reenacting the United States' 200th Anniversary in 1976—which is when 18th Century reenacting (maybe all reenacting!)—really took off (my own Ranger unit was founded about that time) and they say no one wanted to portray the "bad guys"; everyone wanted to be a Patriot. I can imagine the battles must have been pretty boring, and quick, with dozens of patriots fighting a handful of British soldiers.  The Patriot reenactors need to have someone to fight. More importantly, however, is the true nature of Living History, which is to bring actual, real history to life. That obviously could not be done—interested bystanders could not see real history being replayed—without realistic representation on both sides. The numbers of people need to be balanced correctly, the regiments need to be correctly represented, and the reenactments need to be as close to the real thing as we can make it in this day and age.

So, that is why I am a Brit when I reenact the War for American Independence.

The Online Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies