Real Estate Agent Profit And Loss Statement Excel: Fill & Download for Free

Picking up the right commercial real estate broker is the first and the most important decision one will need to make while engaging in retail real estate buying, leasing or lease renewal negotiation. For any business, taking professional advice on an area that is not in your expertise list can be helpful for you. Forgetting the best information choosing the right professional for the job is a must.For this here are Some Tips for Choosing Excellent Commercial Real Estate Broker1. Various brokers move from residential to commercial real estate field, for making good money. However, they sometimes fail to realize that commercial real estate is not just buying and selling the property. It also needs the ability to understand the rent rolls, profit, and loss statement and other specified documents involved with every transaction. If the person is not able to figure out net operating income and debt service coverage ratio of the property, it is better to look for the other option.2. It is also essential to know about the staff of a broker, whether your deal will be handled with efficiency and professionalism. An excellent broker has ideal employees who know areas and also they have excellent connections in the field.3. One should also inquire about the real estate broker's credentials, certification, and education in regard to selling commercial property. Broker may have many years of experience, but they also can adopt new buying and selling methods.4. The ideal broker will always look for the properties that meet the requirements and growth of your business. You can start the process of searching commercial broker by some fellow investors, online and offline platforms and by the help of some trusted colleagues.

This reminds me of a transaction in real estate. I represented the buyer, who owned a couple mobile home parks. He was buying another, more in the country.The sellers showed an appallingly low profit and loss statement (due entirely, obviously, from underreporting income and/or over-reporting expenses. Obvious shenanigans! Even though the buyer had iron clad good credit and excellent business record, the P&L resulted in the buyer being turned down for any “good” loan terms. In fact, terrible. The bank said if he could turn it around and show a solid P&L, they could re-finance after a couple years or so. So, he agreed to the terms, which meant a very high interest rate for one thing.However, the reduced return to the sellers for set number of years meant they told their agent we would have to wait until the refinance for half our commission. A very hard-earned commission.The agent told me how we will have to wait, according to the sellers, for half. I told him up front and positively that I had done my work and my broker and I are entitled to our pay at closing, because that was the offer in the listing.The upshot is that we were paid at closing. I don’t know when the seller agent was paid, when, or even how much. And, I didn’t care.This is clearly an example of mess with your P&L, to defraud the taxing authority, and pay for it afterward. The properties’ numbers don’t lie. Poor numbers mean a poor property.Cheat now and pay for it later.

Revolutionary War General John Stark, one of my ancestors, certainly thought there were “still loyalists around the War of 1812.”On July 31, 1809, Stark wrote to those who had invited him to attend a commemoration of the 32nd anniversary of the Battle of Bennington, fought August 16, 1777, a Patriot victory that Stark commanded in his capacity of a New Hampshire militia general (not as a Continental Army officer). Stark declined to attend, due to being 81 years old and infirmity making travel difficult, but appended to his letter a toast to be given: “Live free or die - death is not the worst of evils.” In 1945, the State of New Hampshire adopted the first part as the state “motto.”In the body of the letter, Stark noted that there were Loyalists during the Revolution, and asserted there were Loyalists still - although he does not use the term “Loyalist.” Here, in part, is what Stark wrote in July 1809:“You well know, gentlemen, that at the time of the event you celebrate [Battle of Bennington, August 16, 1777], there was a powerful British faction in the country (called tories), a material part of the force we contended with. This faction was rankling in our councils, until it laid the foundation for the subversion of our liberties; but, by having good sentinels at our outposts, we were apprised of the danger. … These are my orders now, and will be my last orders to all my volunteers, to look to their sentries; for there is a dangerous British party in the country, lurking in their hiding places, more dangerous than all our foreign enemies ….”To understand what Stark meant by identifying “a dangerous British party in the country,” we need to examine the issue of labeling of movements and causes and principles.We are all familiar with the “labeling game” as a part of persuading masses of people. On abortion, one set of labels is “pro-choice” versus “anti-choice;” but another set of labels is “pro-abortion” versus “anti-abortion.” On immigration, one label is “undocumented immigrant” while the opposite is “illegal immigrant.”The labeling game forces people to declare which side of the issue they are on, even before they can begin to discuss the issue.On the issue we are examining, “loyalist” is the term most favorable to those who opposed the American Revolution; “tory” is the term least favorable to them.“Loyalist” implies that the person was motivated by the emotion of loyalty, and not by selfish economic or social-status considerations. Loyalty is considered generally by the public to be an admirable emotion to have; the worst that can be said about it is that a person who feels and acts on the emotion of loyalty is mistaken about the moral worth of the person or institution to whom loyalty is felt, and acted upon. A person who feels loyalty will often act in ways that are against that person’s own self-interest.“Tory,” by contrast, implied that the person was motivated solely by personal greed - that the person obtained economic benefits and status by being associated with Britain and its Royalty, ministers, and nobles.In Britain itself, personal advancement in government office, receipt of gifts of money and of estates, were self-interested reasons to support the Crown - in addition to benefiting from Britain’s military domination of ocean-trading.In America, even in the colonial years prior to the Revolution, there was not “on offer” to any Americans any holding of high government office inside Britain, nor any offer of gifts of money and of estates. Britain never established inside America an hereditary nobility.Never, from the very beginning of the first colonies in the early 1600s, and through the subsequent some 160 years, was any American summoned by any king to any palace in Britain, there to be invested in an impressive and honorable ceremony with the title and symbols of a duke, of a marquess, of an earl, of a viscount, or of a baron.Never was any American summoned over the ocean to be enrolled in any Royal or Noble order, such as the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, or the Order of the Bath.There were a very few Americans - perhaps it is more accurate to say, persons in America - who claimed such a title, but always by descent from an ancestor in Britain. An excellent and important example is George Washington’s own mentor and supporter in youth, Thomas Fairfax, born in England in 1693. He was heir to the fifth Lord Fairfax, Baron Cameron, who died in 1719. Thomas Fairfax thus became Baron Cameron and 6th Lord Fairfax at the age of 26, while still living in Britain. He inherited Leeds Castle in Kent, and much other land, and also, American lands in Virginia, granted in 1664 and 1681 by King Charles II to his grandfather, in the region along the Potomac River known as the “Northern Neck.”Fairfax did not enter his American lands for another 16 years, until 1735, when Fairfax was 42. He loved the rustic lifestyle and decided to settle there, but he first returned to Britain for another 7 years, nailing-down his title and borders to American lands in the Privy Council, so that there could be no disputes about his lands. At age 49, he settled permanently in America in 1742. According to the Mount Vernon website, Fairfax was “the only English titled nobleman ever to reside permanently in the American colonies.” Fairfax never married and would never have children.In 1748, 55-year-old Fairfax hired 16-year-old George Washington to survey his Northern Neck lands. Fairfax’s resident estate agent was one of his own cousins, and Washington and a son of that cousin (of Washington’s own generation) hit it off well.Mount Vernon’s website tells us that Washington from ages 16 to 26 “was a frequent visitor to Greenway Court [Fairfax’s mansion]. … Washington's friendship with and sponsorship by Lord Fairfax was instrumental in the young man's rise to political and social prominence. The two frequently went fox hunting …. Fairfax supported Washington's successful bid for election to the House of Burgesses in 1758 …. The Lord also tried unsuccessfully to get Washington a seat on the Governor's Council in the early 1770s. Lord Fairfax, a Loyalist at heart for personal, ideological and monetary reasons, managed to avoid expropriation of his lands by the Patriot Virginia government, possibly because of Washington’s protection. By the time the Americans achieved independence, the baron was in his eighties and was careful to express no open opposition to the Revolution or its leader. … The bachelor baron of the Northern Neck died December 7, 1781 at Greenway Court, having lived to see the achievement of American independence made possible by his young protégé, George Washington.”Washington saw and admired the aristocratic life-style - but knew that as an American, he would never be part of it. He would always be a servant to them, never an equal to them.Britain’s oversight in not creating such a social class inside America is a fundamental reason why there was so little sentiment inside America to remain attached to the Crown.It is also a fundamental reason why the Americans so easily adopted the principle in the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ….” By denying any American the elevation-in-status that noble titles mean, all the white men who wrote the Declaration were equal to each other, in terms of status and dignity, and none had ever had the opportunity to rise above any other. By refusing to consider raising even the most wealthy, the most intelligent, the best-educated, and the most articulate Americans, the most prominent and successful Americans, above any other Americans, the British ensured that even the most superior Americans - in terms of intellect, drive, and productivity - would proclaim the equality of all men. Because that equality is exactly what the British nobles and kings had taught these leading Americans to be true. They were all equal - but intolerably, all equally below the higher British classes, that no American had any chance of rising into.Thus, in America, the only economic incentive to support the Crown was in ocean-merchants and in the industries that benefited from having their goods sent over and sold over the oceans.In a study I researched in 2016 and 2017, and offered to the Social Science Research Network, which posted it online in September 2017, I examined in great detail the sentiments of the colonists in the period before July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence from King George III.In summary, that research shows that the founding of all of the colonies founded before 1763 was along the lines of today’s British Commonwealth. Each colony had its own elected legislature, which had a direct personal relationship to the Crown, without any interceding law-making role by the Parliament of England, by the Parliament of Scotland, or by the later (in 1707) combined Parliament of Great Britain.And thus, emotionally, in each colony, the people felt the same feeling of allegiance and loyalty to the King or Queen, that today’s Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders feel today.But in 1760, George III became king, at age 22. He was the grandson of his predecessor, George II, and great-grandson of George I, who were both basically Germans. His descent was almost 100% German - his mother Augusta was 100% German, from Gotha; his father Frederick was almost 100% German, born in Hanover, who didn’t enter Britain until he was 21; his grandmother Caroline was 100% German, from Ansbach; his other grandmother Magdalena was 100% German, from Anhalt-Zerbst; his other grandfather Frederick was 100% German, Duke of Saxe-Gotha.Young George, age 22, wanted to be accepted in Britain as British. On November 18, 1760, in his speech to Parliament on obtaining the Crown, George said “Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Britain.”The Parliament of Great Britain took advantage of George’s powerful emotional desire to be considered British, by passing and obtaining George’s consent to its very first law under his reign: the Civil List Act of 1760. By this Act - which each king and queen has also done since then, making it appear to be an ancient element of the Crown’s relationship to Parliament, but which in fact was a new innovation with George III - the king dedicated almost his entire independent income to Parliament, in return for Parliament making an annual fixed-sum payment of 800,000 pounds back to the king.The deal placed the king entirely in the hands of the Parliament of Great Britain for his living expenses and his other extensive “civil list” expenses.From the outset, the deal was a money-loser for King George III. In the last year of King George II, his independent income, now transferred to Parliament, had been 877,000 pounds - thus making a profit to Parliament of some 77,000 pounds. And the 800,000 pounds was too small to support the king’s expenses. During the 1760s, King George III was able to cover the net loss by drawing-down the surplus that his grandfather King George II had accumulated in the kingly coffers. By the end of the 1760s, the coffers were empty, and King George III had to ask Parliament for a supplementary payment.George III thus had to agree to any measures that the Parliament of Great Britain chose to pursue, to increase its income.At the time George III ascended to the throne, Britain was embroiled in a world-war with France, known as the Seven Years War. In January 1762, Spain joined the war on the side of France, against Britain. In 1763, Britain won this war; and in the peace negotiations, Britain gave France a choice: France could keep either Canada, or several rich sugar-islands in the Caribbean, excluding Grenada, which Britain had captured from France.France chose the islands and abandoned Canada. Spain, also a loser, agreed to give up its claims comprising today’s Florida and regions that are now part of Georgia.On October 7, 1763, King George III proclaimed the establishment of four new colonies: from France, Quebec (the name chosen for French lands in Canada) and the island of Grenada; from Spain, East Florida (basically the largest part of today’s Florida) and West Florida (basically today’s Florida panhandle).The other former Spanish lands, the King attached to the colony of Georgia.Today’s New Brunswick had always been, in British eyes, Nova Scotia land illegally occupied by France, and thus, this land went unmentioned in the Proclamation, since it was already considered part of Nova Scotia. The Proclamation also added today’s Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton and some other smaller islands. Other lands were attached to the existing colony of Newfoundland.Throughout this October 1763 Proclamation - nine times, actually - King George III states that he is acting “with the advice of our Privy Council” or “our said Privy Council.” Not once does the King mention the Parliament of Great Britain.Moreover, he states - by advice of the Privy Council and not mentioning Parliament - that in each new colony there shall be a governor appointed by the king, and a colony Council, and that in each colony the governors”“shall, with the Advice and Consent of the Members of our Council [meaning the colony council], summon and call General Assemblies within the said Governments respectively, in such Manner and Form as is used and directed in those Colonies and Provinces in America which are under our immediate Government: And We have also given Power to the said Governors, with the consent of our Said Councils, and the Representatives of the People so to be summoned as aforesaid, to make, constitute, and ordain Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances for the Public Peace, Welfare, and good Government of our said Colonies, and of the People and Inhabitants thereof, as near as may be agreeable to the Laws of England, and under such Regulations and Restrictions as are used in other Colonies ….”The King makes no mention of Parliament having any law-making role in any of the new colonies; and the King says that this is consistent with the “Manner and Form as is used and directed in those Colonies and Provinces in America which are under our immediate Government.” There were eight such colonies in what would become the United States, in which the governor and council were appointed by the King - including Virginia. Two (well, three) were under “proprietors,” wealthy British landowners: Maryland and Pennsylvania, which included Delaware. Two had elected governors and councils, Connecticut and Rhode Island; and Massachusetts had an elected Council.The experienced bureaucrats who drafted the October 7, 1763 Proclamation were just following the long-established precedent of establishing colonial governments in America - which never included any place for any power of Parliament. In 1755, during the reign of King George II, shortly prior to the outbreak of the Seven Years War in 1756, prominent lawyer William Murray, later to become Justice Lord Mansfield, considered where lay the power to make laws in a settled colony (Nova Scotia) prior to the convening of the first elected representative legislature of that colony.The future Lord Mansfield ruled that “Till there can be an Assembly, his Majesty has ordered the government of the infant colony, to be pursuant to his commission and instruction, and such further directions as he should give, under his sign manual or order in Council.” Here, the King by “his sign manual or by order in Council” has the power to make laws until the colonial government has fully formed - and there is no mention of the Parliament of Great Britain having any power or role at all in making laws in the colony.Then, on March 22, 1765, Parliament adopted and King George III approved the “Stamp Act,” which required that colonial legal transactions, real estate title documents, court orders and decisions, newspapers, and many other categories of documents could be written only upon paper that had been pre-printed with a tax-paid stamp, and imported from Britain. This was a tax on the internal governmental and economic transactions everywhere in every colony.Benjamin Franklin in London, and leading Americans in America, had opposed the law on policy grounds, but when Parliament adopted it anyway, some, including Franklin, and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia - future patriot leaders - promptly tried to take personal advantage of it, by getting friends or relatives appointed to be Stamp Act administrators inside America.But the Stamp Act provoked an unexpected and vociferous opposition inside America - so vehement that Franklin, Richard Henry Lee, and others immediately reversed course, condemned the Stamp Act, and tried to cover-up any evidence that indicated that they had thought to benefit from it.The Prime Minister who had led the Stamp Act into law fell, and was replaced on July 10, 1765, by Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham - the same man who, when again Prime Minister in March 1782, would initiate the effort to end the Revolutionary War by accepting American independence (the subject of one of my Quora answers yesterday). The switch to Rockingham in July was not due to Stamp Act protests, since news of these did not reach Britain until October 1765.Rockingham, assisted by Edmund Burke, promoted sentiment inside Britain for repeal of the Stamp Act. On February 13, 1766, Parliament held hearings, and invited Benjamin Franklin to speak. Franklin declared that if the Stamp Act were not repealed, the result would be “A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that respect and affection.”This is a statement of the loss of the sentiment of loyalty - which is the subject of this question.Parliament on February 21, 1766 repealed the Stamp Act, to which King George III gave Royal assent on March 18, 1766.However, simultaneously with this, Parliament enacted and King George III adopted The Declaratory Act, which stated:“That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever, And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations, whereby the power and authority of the parliament of Great Britain, to make laws and statutes as aforesaid, is denied, or drawn into question, are, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.”Here are the statutes in the original printing, available on google books:My study on SSRN traces the process by which the colonists became convinced that King George III would enforce this despite all their arguments and evidence, expressed in the various petitions etc. of the first Continental Congress in 1774, and of the second Continental Congress in 1775.Throughout this period, the Americans declared and felt loyalty to the king - but opposition to the Parliament.Parliament’s program would reduce all Americans to second-class status, stripped of self-government through their own elected assemblies, which had been a core element of government from the founding of all the colonies through the Proclamation of October 1763.On 4 February 1775, in North Carolina at New Bern, Royal Deputy Auditor and Secretary Archibald Neilson wrote to future US Supreme Court Associate Justice James Iredell, then deputy customs collector at Edenton.Neilson, a close associate of Royal Governor Josiah Martin, urged submission to Parliament, and warned Iredell that he was becoming known in the Governor’s circle as a partisan of the resistance:“[After complaining about New England resistance to Parliament] Good God! is there not a political wisdom as necessary in the conduct of public life as prudence is in private manners? Because it may not be consistent with the general combination of government to permit us that latitude which the few or even say the many think we should enjoy, shall we therefore reject the essential advantages we reap from such combination? So long as America is in the situation of colonies of Great Britain she to be sure will not enjoy all the advantages which may and will be enjoyed by her in a different and future situation; but such considerations I apprehend to be disjoined from the present case. And that if Americans cannot have the first lot of political freedom and happiness, it notwithstanding would be foolish to reject the second and next best. And that because they cannot possibly have all they claim – that cannot militate against their taking what political necessity may allow and political prudence may prompt them for a period to bear with.… N.B. Be careful. People here talk of you being very warm.”North Carolina Royal Deputy Auditor and Secretary Archibald Neilson expressly wrote, on February 4, 1775, to a future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, that under the British position, Americans would be denied “that latitude which the few or even say the many think we should enjoy,” that Americans “will not enjoy all the advantages which may and will be enjoyed by her in a different and future situation,” that “Americans cannot have the first lot of political freedom and happiness,” but rather, are being offered by Britain “the second and next best,” and Neilson urges that Americans should settle for “what political necessity may allow and political prudence may prompt them for a period to bear with.”Is it any wonder that the Americans went into resistance, even armed resistance, against being forced down into this humiliating status? This was not “the deal” when any of the colonies were founded; it was not “the deal” offered by any of the kings or queens before George III. Nobody would have emigrated from Britain to America to populate and develop any American lands, had this been “the deal” offered to them at the time.At the same time in early 1775 as Neilson in North Carolina wrote Iredell, John Adams in Massachusetts got into a “debate of published essays” over precisely this point. In accordance with the custom of the times, both his adversary and he used pseudonyms: Adams adopted “Novanglus,” meaning “New Englander.”In his seventh “Novanglus” essay, published March 6, 1775, Adams expressly advocated for the constitutional position that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have today. Adams maintained that this status is what the American colonies had always had, until Parliament’s power-seeking effort began in 1765.And John Adams expressed his loyalty to King George III in exactly the terms that Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders today express their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II, while simultaneously insisting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has no lawmaking power over any of them:“If it follows from thence, that he appears king of Massachusetts, king of Rhode-Island, king of Connecticut, &c. this is no absurdity at all. He will appear in that light, and does appear so, whether parliament has authority over us or not. He is king of Ireland, I suppose, although parliament is allowed to have authority there. As to giving him those titles, I have no objection at all: I wish he would be graciously pleased to assume them.”King George III refused “to assume them,” but instead fully and vigorously backed Parliament - he did, after all, “glory in the name of Britain” and he was totally financially dependent on Parliament.It took a long time - until July 4, 1776 - before the emotional sentiment of loyalty was extinguished in the hearts of many Americans, as to comprise the overwhelming majority of educated people in all thirteen colonies.There were, however, loyalists after the Declaration. Their experience during the war - at the hands of the British - did-away with sentiments of loyalty. We will take some time here, demarked by the vertical lines, to show this.We take as an example the “First Battalion of Maryland Loyalists,” composed mostly of men from the Maryland “eastern shore” (meaning the east coast of Chesapeake Bay) formed when the British held Philadelphia, in Philadelphia, in October 1777. The British also organized a unit of Pennsylvania Loyalists in Philadelphia at the same time.Did the Marylanders fight to protect their own lands and families in Maryland? Did the Pennsylvanians fight to protect their own lands and families in Pennsylvania? They thought that they would; but they did not.In June 1778, British forces abandoned Philadelphia and marched to New York. The Marylanders and Pennsylvanians remained in New York for a year.Then on June 21, 1779, the King of Spain declared war on the King of Britain - without making any alliance with the Americans. Spain was merely taking advantage of Britain’s preoccupation with the American war.A few months later, in October 1779, the ministers and generals of the King shipped the Maryland and Pennsylvania Loyalist fighters off to West Florida, then a British possession, to defend the King’s colony of West Florida, at Pensacola (on what is now the Gulf Coast “panhandle” of Florida) from attack by the King’s new enemy, the Spanish.These American Loyalists - who had enlisted to defend their homes and families from the Patriots - found themselves taken away from their homeland entirely, treated as tools of the Crown.On the sail south, the ships put-into Jamaica for water and food, and while there, many of the Marylanders contracted smallpox. The Maryland and Pennsylvania Loyalist troops arrived at Pensacola before the Spanish, and went into garrison duty at Fort George.Then a large Spanish force assembled, and in March 1781 besieged the Maryland and Pennsylvania Loyalists, and other British forces, defending Fort George. The Marylanders fought well, at one point executing a bayonet charge, but the defenders were greatly outnumbered, and the British surrendered on May 10, 1781.The Spanish took the surviving Maryland and Pennsylvania Loyalists captive, and sent them to prison in Cuba. In July 1781 they were “paroled,” which meant released on promise not to fight, and sent to New York. While “on parole” confined to New York, the British lost the Siege of Yorktown. Finally, in July 1782, they were legally “exchanged,” which meant that now they could fight.By then, however, the war was effectively over. Peace treaty negotiations were already underway in Paris.By the end of the war, out of the original 300 men, only some 100 enlisted troops remained alive; most of the 200 dead died of smallpox.The 200 lost their lives due to the actions of the British King sending them to fight the Spanish King in far-off Pensacola - not due to any post-war hostility of Patriots against Loyalists.In September 1783, the last 100, with their families, took ship for Nova Scotia, but the ship struck a reef off the Canadian coast and sank, killing 50 more men and many members of their families. The unit, now down to just 50 men, formally disbanded in October 1783, six years after forming in Philadelphia; the last 50 received land grants along the north shore of the St. John River.In 2009, Ph.D. candidate Stuart Salmon at the University of Stirling, in Scotland, (Dr. Salmon earned his Ph.D. in 2010 and is now a professor at Stirling) authored a thesis, “The Loyalist Regiments of the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783” that is a treasure-trove of directly-on-point information. You can read the thesis on the Stirling site at https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/2514/4/The-Loyalist-Regiments-of-the-American-Revolution-Final.pdf. Dr. Salmon discusses recruiting in detail at pages 78 to 85.At page 83 Dr. Salmon shows us the recruiting poster the British used to raise the Pennsylvania Loyalist unit in Philadelphia in October 1777 (the Maryland poster was probably the same) which tells us something important about why the British did so poorly in raising Loyalist sentiment:This poster is representative of recruiting notices used by the British throughout the colonies and throughout the war, as can be seen on the website Revolutionary War Loyalist history and genealogy. Just go to the search page and search “recruiting notice” to see 25 different notices, in text; Dr. Salmon gives us this in the original:“All Intrepid Able-Bodied HEROS who are willing to serve His Majesty King George the Third, in defence of their country, laws, and constitution, against the arbitrary usurpations of a tyrannical Congress, have now not only an opportunity of manifesting their spirit, by assisting in reducing to Obedience their too-long-deluded countrymen, but also of acquiring the polite accomplishments of a Soldier, by serving only two years, or during the present Rebellion in America.“Such spirited Fellows, who are willing to engage, will be rewarded at the end of the war, besides their laurels [“laurels” meaning: the glories won in battle], with 50 acres of land, where every gallant Hero may retire, and enjoy his bottle and lass [“lass” meaning: his girl or wife].“Each volunteer will receive, as a bounty, five dollars, besides arms, cloathing and accoutrements, and every other requisite proper to accommodate a Gentleman Soldier, by applying to Lieutenant Colonel Allen, or at Captain Kearny’s rendezvous, at Patrick Tonry’s, three doors above Market-street, in Second-street.”Everything we need to understand the fundamental British error – fundamental defect in conception, really – is shown by this recruiting poster.Look at the inducements the British offered: cash, and 50 acres of land, on which the soldier can retire to enjoy drink and sex.This is an inducement to men without families, to men without land, to men without jobs.It is the psychology of recruiting natural inside the island of Great Britain, because in Britain, troops were raised not to defend their own homes, but to fight for the King – usually overseas. The men who signed up did so because for the most part they had very little else in their lives – no family to support and live with, no land of their own, no good job.But in America, the Loyalist men, just like the Patriot men, were men who already had families – they were men who already had land.To raise an army of Loyalists, the British would have had to make an argument that Royal rule would be better for their families, better for their businesses and for the productivity of their farms, than a change to Patriot self-government.The British professional military officers never understood that to raise an army of Loyalists, the recruiting approach – the reasons for fighting – required an appeal to men whose psychology was profoundly different than that of men in Britain who responded to recruiting appeals.We see this very clearly in a letter sent April 12, 1783, at the end of the war, by Lt. Colonel James Chalmers, one of the original officers of the Maryland Loyalists, after their odyssey from Philadelphia to New York to Pensacola to Havana and back to New York. Chalmers had arrived in America at age 33 in 1760, with a large amount of capital earned in the West Indies, which he used to buy thousands of acres of plantation lands on the Maryland Eastern Shore. He established a family. In 1776, he wrote and published (under a pen-name, as customary at the time, “Candidus”) a Loyalist rebuttal titled Plain Truth to Tom Paine’s widely popular Patriot Common Sense.In 1783, with the war winding down, the British were planning the “downsizing” of the army; and the hope of Loyalist “provincial” regiments like the Maryland regiment, originally raised as “during the present rebellion” only, was to be transferred into the permanent service by being put on “the American Establishment” (for service in America, in Canada) or on “the British Establishment” – which would guarantee a military career, and thus long-term financial security, for each soldier in the unit who wanted to remain in.Chalmers had just heard that the Maryland Loyalists would not be put onto either “the American Establishment” or “the British Establishment,” but would be disbanded merely with grants of land in Canada, but no steady pay. And thus Chalmers wrote to London, to the highest British politician he had met, George Johnstone, who had been Royal Governor of West Florida in the mid-1760s, and also a Royal Navy officer and Member of Parliament. His letter is on-line at Maryland Loyalists, Chalmers to Johnstone:“Perhaps, Sir, You may remember that I had the honor to be presented to you at Philadelphia, through General GREY; that you were pleased to say he had informed you, that, I had better performed my compact with Government than any other Provincial Officer ….“May I be permitted, Sir, to observe, that from Philadelphia we marched nearly four hundred men, chiefly natives of Maryland; that the officers were respectable by their connections and property; that we embarked for Florida, from which period until the surrender of the [Florida] Colony, we lost several officers, and one hundred and seventy men, by the small-pox received at Jamaica, as well as by extraordinary fatigue &ca on the works near Pensacola. …“In justice to ourselves, we have therefore, sir, transmitted a memorial to the King, which we hope, Sir Robert EDEN [note: the last Royal Governor of Maryland, a Briton given a rare American-named title, as 1st Baronet, of Maryland] will present: now, sir, from your generous patriotism and humane attention to the unhappy American Loyalists, we would hope that you would not be displeased to afford some degree of countenance to our memorial.”Chalmers clearly states that he and others in the Maryland Loyalists staked property on the contest, and renounced domestic felicity.Although the Maryland regiment as a whole was not put on “the American Establishment” or “the British Establishment,” individual officers received the offer.One such was a Major of the Maryland regiment, Walter Dulany, Jr. Dulany was of an old and prominent Maryland family, with 20,000 acres of plantation land. The portions inherited by the three Dulany brothers who fought for the King as Loyalists, and also the land of their uncle, Daniel Dulany II, a strong Loyalist though (at age 55 in 1776) to old to fight, was confiscated by the patriot authorities due to Dulany and his brothers being Loyalists in arms. Other Dulany land, the family house and grounds in Annapolis, are now the site of the United States Naval Academy (purchased by the federal government in 1808). The family had other wealth, however, that enabled many family members to relocate to London during the war – and, as it turned out, after.Thus Major Walter Dulany, Jr., received an individual offer to join the British Establishment and remain in the King’s army service long-term. In response, on March 29, 1783, Dulany wrote the British Commander in Chief, Sir Guy Carleton (we find it on-line at Maryland Loyalists, Dulany's Explanation):“Whilst I take this opportunity to offer your Excellency my most sincere thanks, for the flattering prospect of being put upon the British Establishment, candour, a very great anxiety to preserve the good opinion of your Excellency, and a desire to avoid the appearance of future inconsistency, render it necessary, that I should be explicit, with respect to the situation in which I stand.“My duty as a subject, the happiness which America enjoyed under the British Government, and the miseries to which she would be reduced by an independancy, were the motives that induced me to join the British Army; nor are there any dangers, or difficulties, that I would not cheerfully undergo, to effect a happy restoration.“But, at the same time, that I acted, with the greatest zeal, against my rebellious countrymen, I never forgot that I was an American.“If therefore, sir, Independence should be granted, and the war still continued, I should deem it extremely improper to remain in a situation, obliging me to act either directly or indirectly against America.“If, after this declaration, I can be received by your Excellency, upon the footing offered me by Colonel THOMPSON, I shall think myself highly honored, it being the first wish of my heart ever to serve in the British Army, whilst I can with consistency.”Here in Dulany’s letter we see the motives of an American, thinking about the well-being of America: he fought as a Loyalist not primarily because of his “duty as a subject,” but because of two American-focused reasons, one based on the past, and one a conjecture about the future.The “past” reason was “the happiness which America enjoyed under the British Government.”The future projection was “the miseries to which she would be reduced by an independency.”As Dulany emphasizes, “I never forgot that I was an American.”But to the British, it was proof of a divided and thus inadequate character, to feel “I was an American.” The only morally permitted feeling was “I am a subject of the King.” The brusque British rejection of Major Dulany’s concerns is appended to the letter. Dated April 11, 1783, in the name of the Commander in Chief, Sir Guy Carleton, is this:“If Independance is granted and the war continued, he cannot serve directly or indirectly against America.“The King can have no occasion for the Service of such Officers, as will not serve against his Enemies.”We get a very personal, first-hand view of Walter Dulany’s personal ties, via wartime letters sent to him by his family and friends in Maryland, on google books in the 1895 book One Hundred Years Ago, or The Life and Times of The Rev. Walter Dulany Addison, compiled from Dulany family papers by Elizabeth Murray, Rev. Addison’s granddaughter (pages 42 to 77; regrettably the letters are not in date order).These are the letters Walter Dulany was receiving and reading from his family in Maryland – living under Patriot government (Maryland was never invaded by British forces) which meant Dulany could not leave British lines to see them – telling him of his sisters and their husbands and their children, his own nephews and nieces, a couple of hundred miles south of him in Maryland, during his service and at the very moment the ambitious future Baron of Dorchester was scorning him because “the King can have no occasion for the Service of such Officers, as will not serve against his Enemies.”Dulany was concerned that someday, the King might decide that “his Enemies” included Dulany’s own brothers-in-law and his own nephews, and order Dulany to kill them. Dulany, like every other Loyalist America, would have absolutely no vote, no representation, in Parliament, no “say” at all in the government that might decide to declare his own close relations “Enemies” of the King. These letters make vivid to us the position Loyalist Americans were in, a position that the British showed no comprehension of. We look at excepts of three during the war: the first in 1781 before Yorktown, the next two from 1783, the time Dulany wrote to Carleton:[August 27, 1781, from his sister Rebecca “Becky” (Dulany) Hanson, wife of Patriot Maryland (Charles County) militia Captain Thomas Hanson; and mentioning his sister Mary “Molly” (Dulany) Fitzhugh, wife of George Lee Mason Fitzhugh; and mentioning his unmarried sister “Kitty”] (pages 57-58):“I believe that I can begin with nothing that will give you more pleasure than to tell you that we are all well & as happy as the times – and being separated from so many of our dearest ones – will admit of. Mr. & Mrs. Fitzhugh [sister Molly] have been the greatest part of the summer and are still with us. Their three children (with my youngest little Nan Hanson) have been inoculated for the small pox, which they all got over very happily.“I know you will be happy to hear that my dear boys have an exceeding good tutor at home and are very good and anxious to be clever fellows. They are constantly talking of you. …“Your old friend Carr & his lady are well and have three very fine children. Col. Addison is well and Mrs. Addison recovering from a very bad state of health. They have had two children since you left us. Indeed, my dear Walter, the neighborhood is entirely ruined by the vast number of children that have sprung up among us. There are no less than twenty-two children just in the families of your acquaintances here: and my Watty the eldest. I tell you this, that if at any time you should feel a more than common inclination to be amongst us, only fancy you have ten or a dozen children hanging about you and thank your stars you are a hundred miles off. …”[April 23, 1783, one month after Dulany wrote Carleton to say he would not fight Americans after independence, from his mother, Mary Dulany, mentioning his unmarried sister “Kitty”] (pages 67-68):“My dear Wat: … Thursday our races begin and Kitty has just gone off in a superb Phaeton & four [horses] with a very flaming beaux to the ground. I don’t know his name. Yesterday was his first appearance with our infinity of French Beaux all of whom are very gallant. …“To-morrow we celebrate Peace. I hear there is to be a grand dinner on Squire Carroll’s Point, a whole ox to be roasted & I can’t tell how many sheep and calves besides a world of other things. Liquor in proportion. The whole to conclude with illuminations & squibs &c. I had liked to have forgot to mention the Ball which I think had better be postponed. I am horribly afraid our gentlemen will have lighter heads than heels. I think to keep myself snug at home & pray no mischief may happen & for Kitt’s safe return from the Ball. …“The shoes &c [you sent] came very opportunely for Kitty, just two days before our gaiety commences. They are very pretty. You must accept her thanks through me, as she I entirely taken up at present & will be for several days. Be pleased to accept my thanks for the very pretty handkerchief. I’ll wear it and think of you.“I am my dear Wat your affection Mother M. Dulany”[August 7, 1783, four days before Carleton issued his curt dismissal of Dulany’s statement that he would not fight Americans after independence, from his mother, mentioning his sister Mary “Molly” (Dulany) Fitzhugh, and his unmarried sister “Kitty”] (pages 65-66):“My dear Watty: … [A]s [your sister] Molly was not prepared for employing me so soon as I expected in the business for which I came – not to be idle – we made use of the interim in marrying up Kitty.“This affair has been long in agitation & I thought it entirely at an end: however as he was the man of her choice (for indeed she has had many offers) & as his prospects must have much mended I consented to it freely & earnestly recommend him to your regard as a Brother. From a pretty long acquaintance I have reason to believe he is possessed of an excellent heart which with me is the Summum Bonum. … [Note: he is Dr. Horatio Sharpe Belt, M.D.]“I am happy to tell you [your sister] Becky’s three boys are put to a worthy clergyman very capable of improving them. … Your anxiety about them discovers you to be my own dear Wat still; notwithstanding the dissipated life you necessarily must have led, it has not had any of the ill effects which might have been feared. … Will is a fine rustical boy, & your namesake everyone says as like you as he can stare & the sweetest prattler I ever knew. Oh, how I long to have you partake of our domestic felicity.“With the most fervent prayers for your felicity here & hereafter & a happy meeting somewhere, dear Watt, your affectionate Mother.”Major Walter Dulany, instead of going to Canada with the ragged few remaining men who had enlisted in the Maryland Loyalists unit, went in 1783 to London to join family members there. He was part of society there, and married an Annapolis lady (the young widow of his half-uncle Lloyd) in London.In a letter from London on August 8, 1784, after the peace, to his sister Mary (Molly) Fitzhugh, he explained his sentiments (pages 69-70):“Though I have seen little of this place [London in 1784] I venture to pass one opinion upon it, that it must be of all others the most delightful for an unconnected man in easy circumstances. [Note: by “unconnected” he means a man with no family ties to persons elsewhere. “Connections” in his time was a word meaning family relationships, not political or business ties as it does today.] There is nothing one can wish or want that is not to be had for money, nor as far as I can see, any-thing without it.“Could I have spent one year or two here in a suitable way I should have been pleased with it, but for permanently settling, no country can be so agreeable to me, as that where the chief of my connections lay. When a man is gay – general acquaintances are pleasant to him, but it is in the conversation of his intimate friends that are dear to him alone, that any solid satisfaction is to be found. When a man has been buffeting about in the world and had an opportunity of observing the characters of mankind, he does not so easily give up his heart to every agreeable person he meets with, without which there is little pleasure in society. …“My best love to Mr. Fitzhugh [Mary’s husband & Walter’s brother-in-law] and my dear little nephews & nieces & compliments to all friends and acquaintances. My dear sister your most truly affectionate Walter Dulany”Dulany returned after a few years to Maryland, and rejoined his large family, still living the life of a gentleman. Aside from the loss of land, he remained well-off, and did not suffer reprisals back in America.These letters show us the bonds of family and affection that were far more important to American Loyalists than the British leadership ever comprehended or took thought of how to respect. These are the ties that Sir Guy Carleton was so blind to when he dismissed Dulany’s concerns with the curt and thoughtless phrase that “the King can have no occasion for the Service of such Officers, as will not serve against his Enemies.”Historians, researchers, and commentators who regularly denounce the Patriots for poor treatment of Loyalists ought to take a good hard look at the British treatment of Loyalists. By 1784, no sane American would ever be a Loyalist - due to the way the British treated them.Thus, there were no “emotional” Loyalists in America by the time of the War of 1812 - which is the time this question focuses on.But there was some basis for General Stark’s assertion in 1809 that there was “a dangerous British party in the country” at that time. These were the economic and self-interest-driven “loyalists” who made wealth by the operation of the Royal Navy and the British Empire.There was nothing especially offensive or unreasonable in their position - but John Stark was not one of them and did not understand them. Although he was a superb natural soldier and a magnetic leader of men, he was a farmer-frontiersman, and in youth an indian-country explorer and trapper, who never received any formal education.A great many Americans opposed the War of 1812, and yet ought not be called loyalists or tories. The main trigger for the war was the British practice of “impressing” American sailors who had valid (under American law) claims to no longer be British subjects, but to be American citizens free of any obligation of loyalty to the British Crown.America and Great Britain were in a political disagreement over citizenship versus subjectship, and the Napoleonic Wars pressed Britain to the utmost to maintain the Royal Navy. Britain could not ignore the issue; Britain needed every sailor it could get.Thomas Jefferson had finessed the issue, basically by acquiescing to the British and not going to war. So too did Jefferson’s successor, James Madison, in his first Presidential term. But the continuing British practice at last drove Madison to act. In a close vote, he persuaded Congress to declare war.One of my ancestors, Joseph Pearson, was in Congress, representing North Carolina, at the time; he voted against the war. His future father-in-law, a prominent Washington physician, Dr. Charles Worthington, another of my ancestors, also openly and vehemently opposed the war. However, yet another ancestor, Navy Master and Commander Daniel Todd Patterson, later a Captain and a Commodore, fought and won fame in the war, in the Battle of New Orleans in December 1814-January 1815.The war disrupted transatlantic ocean commerce - damaging the economy of New England. With the abdication of Napoleon in April 1814, Britain was free to turn its navy in full against the United States. In July 1814, British forces occupied some coastal areas in Maine. In August 1814, the British landed forces and captured Washington briefly, burning most federal government buildings (which my ancestors Charles Worthington and his daughter Catherine saw; Dr. Worthington gave treatment to wounded British officers in his home at 3425 Prospect Street. Congress was adjourned at the time, so Pearson was not there.) In mid-September, the British bombarded Fort McHenry outside Baltimore, but were unable to take the city.Almost all American trans-ocean trade ceased. The Royal Navy established an effective blockade.In December 1814, in Hartford, Connecticut, a convention of dissatisfied “federalists” met to discuss several proposed constitutional amendments which, they thought, would correct defects that had led to the present disastrous situation.Although often labeled as a budding secessionist movement, the sentiment was not so much for secession by the New England states, as expulsion of the newly-admitted Western states, and for trying to make a separate peace with Britain - which in a way would be as damaging to the federal government as secession would have been.This 1814 group was a development of what Stark in 1809 had called “a dangerous British party in the country” and called “tories.” Stark’s characterization wasn’t really accurate, but it appears to have given some credence to the proposition that there were “loyalists” in the United States at the War of 1812.The American victory at New Orleans, followed by the arrival in America of the news of a peace-treaty (actually signed by negotiators before the New Orleans battle) removed American concerns over the fighting; and with Napoleon deposed (true, he made a miraculous 100-days comeback beginning in March 1815, but was defeated at Waterloo in June 1815) there was no longer any need for the British to impress American sailors into a rapidly-shrinking Royal Navy.Stark would live another 7 years after the end of the war, dying in 1822 at the age of 93, the longest-lived and last to die of the Revolutionary War generals. He may have kept-up his claims that even after the war there was “a dangerous British party in the country,” but if he did, it was not a claim to be taken seriously.