Frankly, I think you could set aside your German, Swedish, Dutch and French speakers from the category of "loyal subjects" with few exceptions.
They might have paid lip service to the Brits, but that's not a sign of loyalty.
The main source of resistance to the Brits in the Mohawk valley, as a good example, was centered in what was, in the main, a multi-ethnic Lutheran Church ("The Old Yellow Church").. The vision there was far different than that found in the transplanted English villages along the coast.
Then there were the Scots ~ most of them were descendants of fellows who'd been brought to America as POWs from the war of conquest mounted against Scotland by the Brits.
Want some Scottish names from the Revolution? Oh, my goodness!
No, to evaluate what we are really talking about when it comes to secession from the American Union we need to start with conditions at the time of the Treaty of Paris and not before.
Here you had 13 new nations ~ with land claims all the way to the West Coast (among other things). In a short period of time they formed "A new nation" ~ with, again, land claims to the Pacific (which, whether exercised or not actually existed, and were not disputed by the Brits in the treaty conferences leading up to the Treaty of Paris ~ so we don't need to get into a question of whether Georgia's claim to California was greater than Mexico's ~ which came later.) At the time of the treaty signing there were the colonies, and their land claims.
Within the framework of the Articles of Confederation lines were drawn and political institutions established, and vice versa.
That's where we start ~ not with the pre-existing foreign sympathies of the greater part of the American population in 1776.
Americans logically begin their legal history as The United States! A new nation with vast land resources made a conscious decision to sell it to the people to extend civilization into the wilderness.
/facepalm
Lol...
Im uncomfortable disturbing someone while they “pleasure” themselves (mentally, of course) but here is a bit more for you...
The fedgov will be in the same position as the British in regards to “ownership” of anything they previously had claim over or thought they owned, that includes land and people. This isn’t a question or a matter for the laws or contracts of men. This is about humans acting upon their natural right to withdraw consent and break the bonds which tied them to another and creating new guards for their future security. The entity that seeks to retain control has no legal recourse because there are no courts or laws that bind the parties once this takes place. They can either step aside and resign themselves to the inevitability of it or they may attempt to re-shackle US through violent means.
What anti-secessionists seek to do through their “arguments” is (if they cannot frighten us into staying) then justify their violence upon those who dare reject them. We, on the other hand, will justify OUR violence in response to yours (if you can even muster an army without us).
This crap your shoveling is MEANINGLESS. At the very moment we withdraw consent to be bound to you there will be “NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY” (lol) other than the use of arms. That is a choice that you (figuratively speaking) will have to make AFTER you convince your “loyal” population that is is the right thing to do, AND keep them supporting it as the casualties mount. YOU will be the aggressor, I wonder how that will play after a few months... ;^)