Contents—First American Rebellion—Independence—Traitors made Heroes—Loyalists driven away to found another Colony—The responsibility of rebelling—Treatment of the Loyalists—The several Colonies—The first Englishman in America—Receives £10—English Colonization—Virginia—Convicts—Extent of Virginia—First Governor—Virginians not willing to rebel—Quota supplied to the rebel army—New York—Hudson—The Dutch—New Netherlands—Price of New Amsterdam (New York)—First Legislative Assembly—Not quick to rebel—Quota of rebel troops—Gave many settlers to Upper Canada—New Jersey—Its settlement—A battle ground—Gave rebel troops; also loyal troops—Furnished settlers to Upper Canada—Massachusetts—Captain Smith—New England Puritans—The “Mayflower”—First Governor—Cruel treatment of Indians—Massachusetts takes the lead in rebelling—Troops—Loyalists—New Hampshire—Troops—Delaware—Settlement—Quota of rebel troops—Connecticut—Education—Troops—Roman Catholics—Toleration—Rhode Island—Providence—Inconsistency of the Puritans—Roger Williams—North Carolina—Inhabitants—South Carolina—Many loyalists—Pennsylvania—William Penn—Conduct toward Indians—The people opposed to rebellion—Georgia—Oglethorpe—Policy of England—New England.
In the introductory chapters a brief sketch has been given of the settlement of America. We now approach the important events which belong to the first great American rebellion, which culminated in the Declaration of Independence by the thirteen British American Colonies, and terminated in the recognition of their independence by the parent State. The rebellion had resulted in a revolution, and traitors were made heroes!
It forms a part of the present undertaking to record some of the facts relative to the steps by which the now powerful United States were, as a whole, ushered into the arena of nations, and by which a large class of Americans, true to their British allegiance, were compelled to leave their native country to found another colony in the northern wilderness. To be justified in rebelling against the constituted authorities there must be the most cogent reasons; to take up arms against the State—to initiate a civil war, is assuming the most fearful consequences.
To present even a brief account of the circumstances which led to the settlement of Upper Canada, it becomes necessary to dwell for a time upon the great rebellion of 1776, the result of which was adverse to those Americans who adhered to the old flag under which they had been born, had come to the new world, and had prospered; a rebellion which was attended and followed by persecution and violence, imprisonment and confiscation, banishment, and, too often, death; which caused a stream of refugee loyalists to set in toward the wilderness of Canada.
At the time of the rebellion of the English colonists in America, they consisted of thirteen provinces. Massachusetts, with her colony of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. It may be well to briefly notice these several states, and the part each took in the war for Independence.
The first Englishman to set foot upon the continent of America was John Cabot, who discovered Newfoundland, and probably the adjacent mainland, June 4, 1497. The event is noticed in the Privy Purse expenditure thus: “1497, Aug. 10—To hym that found the new Isle, £10,” which seems to have been a grant for his services.
In the year 1578, Sir H. Gilbert endeavoured to establish a settlement at the mouth of the Roanoke. Failing in his undertaking, his half brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, made a similar effort the following year, which likewise failed. It was Sir Walter Raleigh who gave the name to Virginia, in honor of Elizabeth, the virgin Queen. A third and successful effort was made to colonize in 1607–8, at Jamestown. This dates the commencement of English colonization of America. Some time later, America was looked upon as a country quite beyond the pale of civilization, even as Botany Bay was at a still later period; and in the year 1621, the British Government transported to Virginia 100 convicts. But notwithstanding, “Virginia,” to use the words of Morse’s Geography, “the birth-place of Washington, has given six Presidents to the Union.”
The colony of Virginia was originally indefinite in its boundary; and, judging from old maps, it would seem to have included all of North America. But a map dated 1614 shows the more northern part as New England. The first Governor of Virginia entered upon his duties in 1619.
This State was by no means quick to sever the connection with the mother country. Many of her sons stood up for the crown, and very many families became refugees. Washington said of Virginia, in a letter, that “the people of Virginia will come reluctantly into the idea of independence.” But in time, by the specious representations of Washington and others, the State produced a certain number of rebels. The quota demanded by the rebel congress was 48,522. She supplied, in 1776, 6,181; and afterwards 20,491.
In the year 1609 Hendrick Hudson, an Englishman, in the employ of Holland, first explored the great river running through New York State, which now bears his name. He, on behalf of the Dutch took possession of the country. Settlement first took place in 1614, and by 1620, a considerable colony was planted. The island of Manhatten, where now stands New York City, was honestly purchased of the Indians for twenty-four dollars. The village thus founded was called New Amsterdam, and the colony was designated New Netherlands.
Having been taken by the English in 1674, the name of the territory was changed to New York, after James, Duke of York, brother to Charles II. The first Legislative Assembly for this Province, met in New York, 17th October, 1683, just one hundred years before Upper Canada began to be settled.
The State of New York was not among the foremost in rebelling. The Dutch element which prevailed, was not given to change. Some of the most exciting events and battles of the war were enacted in this State. Right royally did the people take up arms against the rebels and drive Washington from Manhatten. Battalions and regiments were repeatedly raised and organized in this State. The valleys of the Mohawk and Hudson became historic grounds. Here was witnessed the ignoble failure of Burgoyne’s Campaign, which was the commencement of the decline of British power; and the City of New York was the last ground of the States occupied by British troops, until the war of 1813. New York furnished troops for the rebel cause, in 1775, 2,075; in 1776, 3,629; and subsequently 12,077.
Of all the States, New York gave the largest number of pioneers to Upper Canada.
New Jersey was settled in 1620 by the Dutch and Swedes. Having been taken by the English, it was given by Charles II. to the Duke of York. Retaken by the Dutch in 1673, it was bought by Wm. Penn and his friends. At one time it was divided into East Jersey and West Jersey, East Jersey belonging to Penn. In 1702 the two Jersies were united under one government, and received the name of New Jersey.
Upon the grounds of this State were fought some of the most decisive battles of the war.
Of the Rebel troops Jersey supplied in 1676, 3,193. The quota required afterwards was 11,396—of which she granted 7,534. But Jersey also gave a large number of Royal troops.
New Jersey furnished a good many settlers to Upper Canada, of whom one of the most distinguished is the Ryerson family. Many of the settlers along the bay retain interesting traditions of their Jersey ancestry.
The territory of this State was originally discovered by the Cabots in 1497, and visited by Capt. John Smith in 1614, by whom it was said to have been named New England. It consisted of the present States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In 1620, upon 22nd December, the Puritan Fathers landed upon the Plymouth Rock, some 30 miles from Boston, and planted the first of the New England States. The “Mayflower,” by which they had traversed the Atlantic was only 180 tons burden. She sailed from Southampton with 102 emigrants. Half of this number died from cold and hardship the first year. They selected for their first Elder one John Carner, who as chief officer had great control. He has consequently been called the first Governor of New England. The territory had been granted by James I. to the “Plymouth Company.” Although the Puritans had left their homes because they did not enjoy their rights, they forgot the Golden Rule in their forest homes. They failed to remember that the Indian had rights. The untutored native thought he had a right to the soil, and as the Puritans, unlike Penn, were unwilling to recognize his rights, but undertook to appropriate the territory, there ensued bloody Indian wars. The Puritan revenged himself, and the native retaliated. So, for many years border massacres were common and terrible.
Massachusetts with the other New England States, took the lead in rebellion, and by great pains succeeded in indoctrinating the midland and Southern States. The first blood of the rebellion was shed in this State, at Lexington and Bunker Hill. The State supplied troops in 1775, 16,444; in 1776, 13,372. The quota subsequently required was 52,728, of which 38,091 was furnished.
But Massachusetts had not a few true-hearted loyalists of whom a considerable number became settlers in Upper Canada. At the evacuation of Boston “1,100 retreated in a body with the Royal army. Altogether there left Massachusetts at least 2,000 United Empire Loyalists.” The Colony of Maine also had a good many adherents of the crown—(Sabine.)
This Province was first colonized by emigrants from Hampshire, England, in 1623. Subsequently it was peopled by English from other parts, and by Scotch.
New Hampshire supplied in 1775, 2,824 troops; in 1776, 3,012. Her quota was 10,194. Granted 6,653. We are at the same time assured by Sabine that New Hampshire had many and powerful opponents of rebellion.
Delaware was originally settled by Swedes and Finlanders in 1627. Became a part of New Netherlands in 1655, and in 1664 fell to the English. It was included in the grant of Wm. Penn in 1682. In 1701 it was erected into a colony for legislative purposes.
She supplied rebel troops in 1776, 609. Her quota fixed was 3,974. Supplied 1,778.
Connecticut was first occupied by emigrants in 1631. The Charter was granted by Charles II., which continued in existence until 1818, when it was superseded by the existing constitution. Connecticut “has uniformly been a nursery of educated men of every class” for the Union. And, it may be added, a number found their way to Upper Canada, as school teachers, subsequent to the Revolution. And there was a certain number of the people of Connecticut among the Loyalists. Sabine says a good many.
This State furnished for the rebel war in 1775, 4,507; in 1776, 6,390. The quota fixed was 28,336, of which was given 21,142.
Maryland was granted to the second Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, by Queen Mary, in 1632 or 4. He colonized the Province with a company of Co-religionists of the higher class of English gentry. It was named after the English Queen, Henrietta Maria. “In 1649, it was made, as has been well said, ‘a land of sanctuary,’ by the toleration of all religious denominations, but the Puritans, expelled from Virginia, made great trouble in the Colony.”
The State supplied troops in 1776, 637. Quota fixed by congress 26,608, of which she supplied 13,275.
Massachusetts, planted by Puritans, who came to secure liberty of conscience, would not allow certain individuals in their midst to enjoy like religious liberty, and hence the foundation of Rhode Island. Providence, its original name, was thus significantly called, because here the Baptists, under Roger Williams (oppressed by the Puritans of Plymouth), found a providential asylum. This was in 1636. In how short a time (16 years) had the oppressed learned to act oppressively!
A charter was granted to Roger Williams in 1642. The government continued to exist under this charter until 1842, a period of 200 years.
Rhode Island gave troops to the number of 1,193 in 1775, and 798 in 1776. Quota demanded, 5,694; furnished 3,917.
This colony was planted in 1653 by the older colony of Virginia. The colony at first included both North and South Carolina, which continued until 1693, when the south part was erected into a separate colony, under the name of South Carolina. The inhabitants of North Carolina consisted, in part, of refugees from England at the overthrow of the Stuarts. These mainly remained loyal to the crown, and were destined to again become refugees. At the commencement of the rebellion the people of this colony were about equally divided between the adherents of the crown, and the rebels. The loyalists were a devoted band. At the same time, the rebels—at least some of them—took extreme steps. They formally demanded a separation from Great Britain in May, 1775, fourteen months before the 4th July declaration of 1776. The State provided, in 1776, 1,134 rebel troops. The quota asked for was 23,994, but only 6,129 was granted.
South Carolina was first settled in 1670.
“The great body of the people were emigrants from Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, and the northern colonies of America, and their descendants, and were opposed to a separation from the mother country;” yet South Carolina furnished troops for the rebellion, in 1776, to the number of 2,069. Subsequently she gave 4,348; although her quota, as fixed by Congress, was 16,932.
In this colony were many who could not see the justice of a rebellion. Yankee descendants may say they “bowed their necks to the yoke of colonial vassalage,” but it was a wise spirit of conservatism which is expressed in the desire to “look before you leap.” “Persons who had refused to enlist under the whig banner, flocked to the royal standard by hundreds.” “Sir Henry Clinton informed the British Government that the whole State had submitted to the royal arms.” This general attachment to the British crown made the rebels vindictive and bloodthirsty, and they sought to drive away the loyal and peaceable by a vengeful shedding of blood. Consequently, the tories retaliated, and Chief Justice Marshall said, “the whigs seem determined to extirpate the tories, and the tories the whigs; some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter.” “Being almost equally divided, reciprocal injuries had gradually sharpened their resentment against each other, and had armed neighbour against neighbour, until it became a war of extermination.” Now, it is submitted that rebellion can hardly be justified when the people are so equally divided. Sabine remarks that “after the fall of Charleston, and until the peace, the tories were in the ascendant.”
This splendid colony was granted to William Penn, the Quaker and philanthropist, who was the son of Sir William Penn, an eminent English admiral. Sir William held a claim against the British government for £16,000; and, some time after his death, his son having his attention directed to the new world, obtained, in lieu of that amount, the grant of land now forming this State. The charter was granted by Charles II. in 1681. Penn sought the new world to escape the persecutions inflicted upon him at home. This he had brought upon himself, by freely expressing his decided sectarian views, and by writings, disseminating the teachings of George Fox, also by attacking the Established Church. He was repeatedly imprisoned in the Tower, and even in Newgate for six months. Penn, on procuring the grant of land, determined to make it “a home for his co-religionists, where they might preach and practice their convictions in unmolested peace.” To the territory he gave the name of Sylvania; but afterwards King Charles insisted that Penn should be prefixed, making it Pennsylvania. Penn sailed from England, with several friends, in August, 1682. On reaching America he found that some Swedes and Finns had settled along the banks of the Delaware. Although Penn had a charter by which he could possess the land, yet, as an European, he did not forget the original and rightful owners of the soil. Penn’s conduct in this respect stands out in striking contrast to the course pursued by the Puritans. It was on the 30th November, 1682, that William Penn held his famous interview with the Indian tribes, when he effected a straightforward treaty with them, never to be broken or disturbed, so that he secured perpetual peace and respect. By this humane course with the Indians, and by encouraging emigration of all classes, securing to them the fullest liberty of conscience by a wise constitution, he succeeded, with his co-religionists, in building up a most flourishing colony. Subsequently the population was enlarged by numerous accessions from Scotland and Germany.
The government of Pennsylvania was proprietary, and continued such until the revolution swept away the charter, and made the children of William Penn outcasts from the land they and their fathers had made fertile. At the time of the revolution, John Penn, son of Richard Penn, who was the grandson of William Penn, was the Governor of the colony. He, with the masses of the people in the middle States, was opposed to the rebellion. It is said there were thousands of loyalists in this State who desired and offered to serve the crown, but whose services were lost through bungling by those in office. Yet the State gave troops to the rebel cause; 400 in 1775, and in the following year 5,519. The quota allotted was 40,416; granted, 19,689.
This was the last of the thirteen colonies established. The founder was Oglethorpe, who effected a settlement in 1773, and who lived to see the colony a State. The colonists landed at Charleston in January, 1733.
When the rebellion broke out, this colony was “justly regarded as highly loyal.” She refused to send delegates to the first rebel congress; “and that she was represented in the second was owing to the zeal of a native of Connecticut, Dr. Seymour Hall. It required time and labour to organize a party of ‘liberty men’ to complete the Confederacy.” The number of troops supplied in 1775 was 350; the quota was fixed at 3,974, and there was supplied 2,328.
The history of England between the periods when Virginia and Georgia, the oldest and youngest of the colonies that rebelled, were founded, was one of turmoil and strife, of religious contentions and civil war; and the colonists cast off during this hundred years carried with them, across the Atlantic, heartfelt bitterness, and many of them no little passion for evil. Notwithstanding, we have seen that the Southern States, with Pennsylvania and New York, did not seek to divide their connection with the parent State. It was generally admitted that the policy of England towards them “had been mild—perhaps liberal.” But, as we have seen, New England, with a few malcontents in other states—envious office-seekers, managed to disseminate the principles of rebellion—principles that New England has quite forgotten in her treatment of the South.
Of the aforementioned colonies, they all had received and had secured to them by charter, from an indulgent mother country, governments of the most liberal nature. Civil and religious liberty were fully enjoyed. Says Mr. Sabine: “Virtually, republican charters; subject only to the appointment of a governor on the part of the Crown. Every colony was, practically, a State within itself; and it is a suggestive fact that the very earliest assertion of legislative superiority on the part of the mother country only operated negatively, by forbidding every colony to make laws repugnant to those of England.”
Certain of the British colonies were, together, called “New England,” and since the Independence they are known as the New England States. They consist of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine, which was then a colony of Massachusetts. This region was granted by James I. to the Plymouth Company in 1606. It was called North Virginia, but it was changed some years later, before it was actually settled. It was the people of these States to whom the term “Yankee” was originally applied; and now, in the United States, this epithet is used solely in reference to these States; but in Canada and England the word is applied very generally to all Americans. The origin of the word Yankee is probably traceable to the Indian appellation “Yengee,” for English, or Anglais, after the French.
Contents—American Writers—Sabine—Loyalists had no time to waste—Independence not sought at first—Adams—Franklin—Jay—Jefferson—Washington—Madison—The British Government—Ingratitude of the Colonists—Taxation—Smugglers—Crown Officers—Persistence—Superciliousness—Contest between Old England and New England.
It is most refreshing to one who has been accustomed to see American school books, and even religious American tracts thickly strewn with the most fulsome self-praise, and wordy accounts of British tyranny, and of American purity and valor; to read the speeches, and listen to 4th of July orators, who, with distorted history and hifalutin panegyrics, have not ceased to wrap their country in a blazing sheet of glory. After suffering all this, ad nauseam, it is most agreeable to read the writings of one American author upon the subject of their Independence, who can do some justice to the Loyalists. Reference is made to Lorenzo Sabine, the author of “Royalists of the American Revolution.” Considering the prejudices which exist throughout the United States against every thing British, and the overweening vanity of the people in respect to the success which crowned their efforts to dismember the British Empire; it is a matter for grateful recognition that a native of New England should take up his pen to write redeeming words on behalf of the Loyalists whom they had been taught to stigmatize, to be read by his fellow countrymen. Living upon the borders, beyond which he could see the settled refugees working out their destiny, under adverse circumstances, and laying the foundation of a nation, he took up his pen, while the Upper Canadians were yet struggling with the forest, and without time to gather up the records of their wrongs, their losses, their persecutions, and more than all, the malicious charges against them; and hurl them back at their traducers. On behalf of those who will accept the writer as a representative of the United Empire Loyalists, he thanks Lorenzo Sabine, for what he has said. He has said nothing but the substantial truth in our favor, and in saying that, he has said very much. In his prefatory remarks, after referring to their deficiency of knowledge of the “Tories” he says, “The reason is obvious. Men who, like the Loyalists, separate themselves from their friends and kindred, who are driven from their homes, who surrender the hopes and expectations of life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and exiles,—such men leave few memorials behind them. Their papers are scattered and lost, and their very names pass from human recollections.”
Before considering the question, whether the American colonies were justified in taking an extreme step; it is most necessary to state that, at the first there were but an insignificant number of the colonists who held the belief that armed rebellion was demanded. Even among those who, with no mild-toned language denounced the mother country for enacting laws oppressive to the commerce and industry of the Americans, no one was found to advocate separation; on the contrary to use the words of Sabine “The denial that independence was the final object, was constant and general.” To obtain concessions and preserve the connection with England, was affirmed everywhere; and John Adams, years after the peace, went further than this, for he said ‘There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.’ Again, Franklin’s testimony, a few days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had “more than once travelled from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking, and conversing with them freely, and never had heard in any conversation from any person drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.” Mr. Jay is quite as explicit. “During the course of my life and until the second petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of any class, of any description, express a wish for the independence of the colonies. It has always, and still is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.” Says Mr. Jefferson, “What, eastward of New York, might have been the dispositions toward England before the commencement of hostilities, I know not, but before that I never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great Britain, and after that, its possibility was contemplated with affliction by all.” Washington, in 1774, sustained these declarations, and, in the “Fairfax County Resolves” it was complained, that “malevolent falsehoods” were propagated by the ministry to prejudice the mind of the king; particularly that there is an intention in the American colonies to set up for independent States; and Washington expressed a wish that the “dispute might be left to posterity to determine.” Mr. Madison was not in public life until May, 1776, but he says, “It has always been my impression, that a re-establishment of the colonial relations to the parent country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the real object of every class of the people, till the despair of obtaining it.”
The testimony of these Fathers of the Republic, cannot be impeached; and, we must, therefore, seek for the cause of the rebellion in some other place. We have seen how the British colonies were planted. In connection with them, two leading influences may be discovered constantly at work, one of a personal nature; the other referring to the State. Individuals would not sever the ties of home-ship and brave the wide ocean, to expose themselves to the varied dangers of the wilderness, did they not have good reason to expect due returns. The Government would not afford ships and means to send her sons to distant shores, unless the colony would become serviceable to the parent State. The British Government had enabled many a hardy son to lay the foundation for substantial wealth. More than all, the colonies of America had been assisted to put under their feet their French rival. For their benefit the Crown expected, and undertook to enforce some tribute. But the colonists would not recognize the right of the Crown to tax them for their labor. For all the British Government had done for the colonies, for all the money spent, she required that the colonists should be taxed. Laws were enacted, and officers and revenue collectors appointed to enforce the laws. It was required that these colonies should not trade, without certain restrictions, with foreign nations; but the merchants of Massachusetts, having tasted the sweets of unrestricted trade, were unwilling to pay revenue to the Crown, although trading under the protection of the British flag. And so it came that when royal collectors of customs were sent out; when men of war coasted the shores of Massachusetts to prevent smuggling, by Hancock and others, there was no disposition to submit to Imperial taxation. For years the law relating to revenue had been a dead letter almost, the smugglers having used hush money. But at last Government determined to put down illicit trade. It is true the colonies did not object without a special plea, which was “no taxation without representation.” But the real points at issue were, whether contraband commerce should continue and increase, or the Crown receive the dues demanded by law. “Nine-tenths probably, of all the tea, wine, fruit, sugar, and molasses, consumed in the colonies were smuggled. To put this down was the determined purpose of the ministry. The commanders of the ships of war on the American station were accordingly commissioned as officers of the customs; and, to quicken their zeal, they were to share in the proceeds of the confiscations; the courts to decide upon the lawfulness of seizures, were to be composed of a single judge, without a jury, whose emoluments were to be derived from his own condemnations; the Governors of the colonies and the military officers were to be rewarded for their activity by swearing also, either in the property condemned, or in the penalties annexed to the interdicted trade.” And was not the Crown correct in enforcing laws intended for the public weal? Had hostile fleets approached Boston harbour to invade, instead of smuggling crafts, freighted with luxuries, would not the colonist have called loudly for Imperial help to protect? But if the Government had the best of rights to enforce the laws, it certainly displayed much want of judgment in the mode adopted to carry out its demands. The foregoing, from Sabine, recalls to us at once the cause why resistance was strenuously made. The mode of paying their Crown officers was well calculated to kindle feelings of the most determined opposition on the part of the illicit traders, such as John Hancock, John Langdon, Samuel Adams, William Whipple, George Clymer, Stephen Hopkins, Francis Louis, Philip Livingston, Eldridge Gerry, Joseph Hewes, George Taylor, Roger Sherman, Button Gurnett, and Robert Morris, all signers of the declaration of independence,—all smugglers!
And thus it came about. The Crown was determined to exact taxes, and ignorant of the feelings of the colonists; and the colonists, grown rich by unrestricted trade—by smuggling, entered into a contract, which was only to end in dismemberment of the British Empire. Side issues were raised, cries of oppression shouted, the love of liberty invoked and epithets bandied; but they were only for effect, to inflame the public mind, of which there was much wavering. Of course, there were other things which assisted to ripen rebellion, at least were so represented, that they added to the growing discontent. Colonies, when they have become developed by age, and powerful by local circumstances, will naturally lose the interest which animates the subject at home. It is in the nature of things that the love of country should gradually change from the old home to the new. The inhabitants of the colonies were in many cases but descendants of European nations, who could not be expected to retain the warmest attachment to the parent country. The tide of war had changed the allegiance of many a one. The heterogeneous whole could not be called English, and hence it was more easy to cast aside the noble feeling called patriotism. Then there were jealousies of the Crown officers, and everything undertaken by the home government, having the appearance of change, was promptly suspected as being intended to degrade them. The exclusiveness of the regular army and superciliousness to the provincial troops, during the French war, caused many a sting, and the thought of insult to the provincial officer remained to rankle and fester in the mind of many a military aspirant. The proposal to introduce Episcopal Bishops, to give precedence to the Established Church, had its effect upon many, yet many of the non-conformists were equally loyal.
The contest was originally between New England and Old England. While the Middle and Southern States were for peace, or moderate measures, the north sedulously worked to stir up strife by disseminating specious statements and spreading abroad partisan sentiments. Massachusetts took the lead. Founded by Puritans, (who, themselves were the most intolerant bigots and became the greatest persecutors America has seen,) these States possessed the proper elements with which to kindle discontent.
Thus we have learned that independence was not the primary object of revolt, and we have seen that the leaders in rebellion were principally New Englanders, and were actuated mainly by mercenary motives, unbounded selfishness and bigotry.
Contents—The signers of the Declaration of Independence—Their nativity—Injustice of American writers for 80 years—Cast back mis-statements—The whigs had been U. E. Loyalists—Hancock—Office-seekers—Malcontents stir up strife—What the fathers of the Republic fought for—Rebel committees—Black mail—Otis, John Adams, Warren, Washington, Henry, Franklin—What caused them to rebel—What the American revolutionary heroes actually were—Cruelty, during and after the war—No freedom—The political mistake of the rebels in alienating the loyalists—The consequence—Motives of the loyalists—False charges—Conscientious conservatives—Rebellion not warranted—Attachment to the old flag—Loyalists driven away—Suppressio veri—Want of noble spirit towards the South—Effects—Comparison between loyalists and rebels—Education—Religion—The neutral—The professions.
Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence nine were born in Massachusetts, seven in Virginia, six in Maryland, five in Connecticut, four in New Jersey, four in Pennsylvania, four in South Carolina, three in New York, three in Delaware, two in Rhode Island, one in Maine, three in Ireland, two in England, two in Scotland, and one in Wales. Of these twenty-one were attornies; ten merchants; four physicians; three farmers; one clergyman; one printer; and ten men of fortune.
But let us more carefully consider the motives in connection with the rebellion of ‘76. So assiduously have our fathers, the U. E. Loyalists, been branded by most American writers as altogether base, that it becomes us to cast back the mis-statements—to tear away the specious covering of the American revolutionary heroes, and throw the sunlight of truth upon their character, and dispel the false, foul stigma, which the utterances of eighty years have essayed to fasten upon the noble band of Loyalists.
Up to 1776, the whigs as well as the tories were United Empire Loyalists; and it was only when the king’s forces required taxes; when the colonists were requested no longer to smuggle; when they could not dispossess the tories of the power and emoluments of office—it was only then that the Declaration of Independence was signed by those more particularly interested. John Hancock, whose name stands first upon the document, in such bold characters, had been a successful smuggler, whereby he had acquired his millions, and no wonder he staked his thousands on the issue. Evidence is not wanting to show that many of the leaders of the rebellion, had they been holders of office, would have been as true to the British Crown as were those whom they envied. Every man who took part on the rebel side has been written a hero; but it is asking too much to request us to believe that all the holders of office were base, and lost to the feelings of natural independence and patriotism; more especially when a large proportion of them were, admittedly, educated and religious men; while, on the contrary, the rebels alone were actuated by patriotism and the nobler feelings of manhood. Apart from the merits or demerits of their cause, it must be admitted that the circumstances of the times force upon us the thought that a comparatively few needy office-seekers, or lookers-after other favors from the Crown, not being able to obtain the loaves and fishes, began to stir up strife. A few, possessed of sufficient education, by the aid of the wealthy contraband traders, were enabled, by popular sensational speeches and inflammatory pamphlets, to arouse the feelings of the uneducated; and, finally, to create such a current of political hatred to the Crown that it could not be stayed, and which swept away the ties that naturally attached them to Great Britain.
We may easily imagine the surprise which many experienced in after days, when the war had ended and their independence was acknowledged, to find themselves heroes, and their names commemorated as fathers of their country; whereas they had fought only for money or plunder, or smuggled goods, or because they had not office. In not a few cases it is such whose names have served for the high-sounding fourth of July orators; for the buncombe speechifier and the flippant editor, to base their eulogistic memoriams. Undoubtedly there are a few entitled to the place they occupy in the temple of fame; but the vast majority seem to have been actuated by mercenary motives. We have authenticated cases where prominent individuals took sides with the rebels because they were disappointed in obtaining office; and innumerable instances where wealthy persons were arrested, ostensibly on suspicion, and compelled to pay large fines, and then set at liberty. No feudal tyrant of Europe in the olden times enforced black mail from the traveller with less compunction than rebel “committees” exacted money from wealthy individuals who desired simply to remain neutral.
It has been said that Otis, a name revered by the Americans, actually avowed that he “would set Massachusetts in a flame, though he should perish in the fire.” For what? Not because he wanted liberty, but because his father was not appointed to a vacant judgeship! It is alleged that John Adams was at a loss which side to take, and finally became a rebel because he was refused a commission in the peace! It is said that Joseph Warren was a broken-down man, and sought, amid the turmoil of civic strife, to better his condition. And the immortal Washington, it is related, and has never been successfully contradicted, was soured against the mother county because he was not retained in the British army in reward for his services in the French war. Again, Richard Henry was disappointed in not receiving the office of stamp distributor, which he solicited. Franklin was vexed because of opposition to his great land projects and plans of settlement on the Ohio. Indeed it is averred that mostly all the prominent whigs who sided with the rebels were young men, with nothing to lose and everything to gain by political changes and civil war. Thus it will be seen that the so-called American revolutionary heroes have not altogether clean hands, however much they may have been washed by their descendants. The clothing placed upon them may conceal the dirt and dross and blood, but they are indelibly there.
It is not alone the motives which constituted the mainsprings of the rebels’ action that we place in the balance, but their conduct towards those who differed from them. Individual instances of cruelty we shall have occasion to introduce; but it may here be said that it was the tories who acted as the conservators of peace against a mobocracy, and consequently were made to suffer great afflictions. It was because of this they were forced away to live and die as aliens to the land of their birth. The tories were Americans as well as the whigs; and when at last Great Britain ceased to try to coerce the colonies, and their independence was secured, then a nobler spirit should have obtained among the conquerors, and no one, because he had conscientiously been a conservative, should have been treated with opprobrium. It always becomes the victorious to be generous; and we, with all respect to many American friends, submit that, had patriotism alone actuated the revolutionary party, the American loyalists would have been invited to join with the whigs in erecting a mighty nation. Had freedom, indeed, been the watchword then, as it has flauntingly been since, it would have been conceded that the tory had a right to his opinion as well as the whig to his. Do the Americans descant upon the wisdom and far-seeing policy of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and framed the constitution of the Union? Monroe, we doubt not, had a different opinion when he begot the doctrine “America for the Americans.” Had the U. E. Loyalists been treated honorably; had they been allowed but their rights; had they not been driven away; then the name British American would forever have passed away; and instead of a belt of British provinces on their north, to constitute a ceaseless cause of misunderstanding with England, the star-spangled banner would, doubtless, long ago, have peacefully floated over all our land. Looking at the subject from this (an American) stand-point, we see that a shortsighted policy—a vindictive feeling, a covetous desire for the property of the tories—controlled the movements of the hour; and when the terms of peace were signed the birthright of the American tory was signed away, and he became forever an alien. But, as we shall see, he, in consequence, became the founder of a Province which, like a rock, has resisted, and ever will resist, the northward extension of the United States.
Whatever may have been the incentives to rebellion, yielded to by those who revolted, there cannot rest upon the mind of the honest reader of unbiassed history a doubt as to the motives of the loyalists. The home-spun eulogists of the United States revolutionary soldiers have never ceased to dwell upon the principles which fired the breasts of the patriots, and nerved their arms to deeds of daring and successful warfare; all the time observing silence respecting the bravery of those who, from the same walks of life, engaged in the strife as the determined antagonists to rebellion. They have again and again charged upon the “king’s men” that it was because they were servants of the Crown and feeders at the government stall that loyalty was assumed and fought for. But facts, when allowed to stand out uncovered by the cant of liberatists, declare, in words that may not be gainsayed, that there were a vast number who held no appointment under the Crown, yet who, from first to last, were true—naturally true—to their king and country. The great mass were essentially conservatives, called “tories.” They held the opinion that to rebel was not only unnecessary but wrong. They believed that the evils of which the colonists had just reason to complain were not so great as to justify the extreme step taken by the signers of the Declaration of Independence; that any injustice existing was but temporary and would, when properly and calmly represented to the home government, be remedied; that to convulse the colonies in war was an unjustifiably harsh procedure; and, entertaining such a belief, it is submitted that they were noble indeed in standing up for peace—for more moderate measures. Moreover, not unlikely, many were impressed with the view that the disaffected were laboring under an erroneous idea of oppression; that the training incident to pioneer life, the previous wars with the French Canadians, the constant contentions with the Indians, had begotten false views of their rights, and made them too quick to discover supposed wrongs. Candidly impressed with such thoughts, they could not be otherwise than true to the natural instincts of their heart, and refuse to take part, or acquiesce in throwing overboard the government of England, and so become aliens to the flag under which they were born and had lived, and for which they had fought. Not many may cast aside their feelings of nationality; not many can forget the land of their birth; not a large number will bury the associations of a life-time without the most potent causes. And, doubtless, the Anglo-American who faithfully adhered to the old flag possessed all the ardor of a lofty patriotism. But the American writer has forgotten all this. In the broad sunlight of national success he has not discovered the sacred longings of the U. E. Loyalists for the Union Jack. Looking at the events of ‘76 by the lurid glare of civil war, his eyes are blinded to the fact that a noble band, possessing equal rights with the rebels, loved England, notwithstanding all her faults, and for that love sacrificed their all of worldly goods. The citizens of the United States would prefer to have it said in history that the U. E. Loyalists, in every instance, voluntarily left their homes during the war, or at its close. The loyalists are thereby, no doubt, made to appear more devotedly attached to the British Crown. But it is right to have it distinctly stated that American writers mostly make themselves guilty of suppressio veri. The latest instance of this is seen in a report to the Hon. Hugh McCullough, Secretary of the Treasury, prepared by E. H. Derby, Commissioner of the Treasury Department, dated January 1st, 1866, who, in remarking upon the British Colonial policy from 1776 down to 1830, takes occasion to say that, “at first there was little fellowship between the United States and the Provincialists, many of whom were descended from the loyalists who followed the British troops from our shores.” The fact is, however, that many of them were driven away. The tories were not loyal without sense; and when the fortune of war had turned against them, they would, in great numbers, have made the best of their changed condition, and have lived to become true citizens of the new-born nation. But this was not to be. The loyalists were to be made feel that they were outcasts. It is the same ignoble and unstatesmanlike course which is now being pursued toward the subdued South. They must needs be made to know they are rebels. It is a shortsighted policy, even as the former was. The former led to the establishment of a nation to their north, which will stand, even after the Union lies in fragments; the latter fosters a feeling of alienation, which will speak upon the first opportunity, in the thunder tones of war.
If a comparison is instituted between the rebels of 1776, and those who were conservators of peace, the contrast is found to be very great. It is charged against the loyalists that all office-holders were tories; but is this more worthy of remark than the fact that many became rebels because they could not obtain office. Nay, the latter is infinitely more heinous in its nature. If we look at the two parties, with respect to education and, it may be added, religion, it is found that the great bulk of the educated and refined, the religious classes, especially the clergy, the leading lawyers, the most prominent medical men, were all loyalists. It was not because they were office-holders, it was because they possessed a moral and elevated mind, educated to a correct standard. Then, again, there was a large class of citizens who loved retirement, and who begged to be allowed to remain neutral, but who were actually compelled to take sides with the rebels or be driven away.
The peaceably inclined, who looked for guidance to their spiritual instructors, generally beheld them, if not actually advocating the interests of the crown, at least setting an example against rebellion, and they were thus strengthened in their feelings of loyalty, or determination to remain neutral. The flame of patriotism was kept aglow in many a heart by the earnest prayer of the gospel minister. Says Sabine: “From what has now been said it is evident that a very considerable proportion of the professional and editorial intelligence and talents of the thirteen colonies was arrayed against the popular movement.” Again: “a large number of the clergy were United Empire Loyalists.” Also, “the giants of the law were nearly all loyalists.” The physicians were mostly tories, but were, as a general thing, not molested. “A few were banished; others became surgeons in the army.”