The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American RevolutionStark, James Henry
History
The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American Revolution
Stark, James Henry
American loyalists -- Massachusetts; Massachusetts -- Politics and government -- 1775-1783
As will be noticed in the foregoing extract from Josiah Quincy's
celebrated speech, New England refused to take any part in the war. In
fact, it must be said in their favor that they refused absolutely to
send any troops to aid in the invasion of Canada. They regarded the
pretexts on which the war had been declared with contemptuous
incredulity, believing them to be but thin disguises of its real object.
That object they believed to be the gratification of the malignant
hatred the slave-holding states bore toward communities of free and
intelligent labor, by the destruction of their wealth and prosperity.
A town meeting was held in Boston at Faneuil Hall on June 11, 1812, at
which it was "Resolved: That in the opinion of this town, it is of the
last importance to the interest of this country to avert the threatened
calamity of war with Great Britain," etc. A committee of twelve was
appointed to take into consideration the present alarming state of our
public affairs, and report what measures, in their opinion, it is proper
for the town to adopt at this momentous crisis.
The committee reported in part as follows: "While the temper and views
of the national administration are intent upon war, an expression of the
sense of this town, will of itself be quite ineffectual either to avert
this deplorable calamity or to accelerate a return of peace, but
believing as we do that an immense majority of the people are invincibly
averse from conflict equally unnecessary and menacing ruin to themselves
and their posterity, convinced as we are that the event will overwhelm
them with astonishment and dismay, we cannot but trust that a general
expression of the voice of the people would satisfy Congress that those
of their representatives who had voted in favor of war, have not truly
represented the wishes of their constituents, and thus arrest the
tendency of their measures to this extremity."
Had the policy of government been inclined towards resistance to the
pretentions of the belligerants by open war, there could be neither
policy, reason or justice in singling out Great Britain as the
exclusive object of hostility. If the object of war is merely to
vindicate our honor, why is it not declared against the first aggressor?
If the object is defense and success, why is it to be waged against the
adversary most able to annoy and least likely to yield? Why, at the
moment when England explicitly declares her order in council repealed
whenever France shall rescind her decrees, is the one selected for an
enemy and the other courted as a conqueror? "Under present circumstances
there will be no scope for valor, no field for enterprise, no chance for
success, no hope of national glory, no prospect but of a war against
Great Britain, in aid of the common enemy of the human race, and in the
end an inglorious peace."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account