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
If the Loyalists were really a majority, as they claimed to be, the
disunionists were determined to break them up. Loyalists were tarred and
feathered and carried on rails, gagged and bound for days at a time;
stoned, fastened in a room with a fire and the chimney stopped on top;
advertised as public enemies, so that they would be cut off from all
dealings with their neighbors; they had bullets shot into their
bedrooms, their horses poisoned or mutilated; money or valuable plate
extorted from them to save them from violence, and on pretence of taking
security for their good behavior; their houses and ships burned; they
were compelled to pay the guards who watched them in their houses, and
when carted about for the mob to stare at and abuse, they were compelled
to pay something at every town. For the three months of July, August and
September of the year 1776, one can find in the American archives alone
over thirty descriptions of outrages of this kind, and all this done by
so-called "patriots" in the name of liberty! In short, lynch law
prevailed for many years during the Revolution, and the habit became so
fixed that it has never been given up. It was taken from the name of the
brother of the man who founded Lynchburgh, Virginia.
Wherever the disunionists were most successful with this reign of
terror, they drove all the judges from the bench, and abolished the
courts, and for a long time there were no courts or public
administration of the law, notably in New England.
To the mind of the Loyalists, all this lynching proceeding were an
irrefragible proof not only that the disunionist party were wicked, but
that their idea of independence of a country free from British control
and British law were silly delusions, dangerous to all good order and
civilization. That such a people could ever govern a country of their
own and have in it that thing they were crying so much about,
"liberty," was in their opinion beyond the bounds of intelligent belief.
A recent American writer says: "The revolution was not by any means the
pretty social event that the ladies of the so-called 'patriotic'
societies suppose it to have been. It was, on the contrary, a rank and
riotous rebellion against the long-established authority of a nation
which had saved us from France, built us up into prosperity, and if she
was ruling us today would, I am entirely willing to admit, abolish
lynch-law, negro burning, municipal and legislative corruption, and all
the other evils about which reformers fret." The same writer also says:
"All that saved this country from complete annihilation was the
assistance after 1778 of the French army, fleet, provisions, clothes,
and loans of money, followed by assistance from Spain, and, at the last
moment, by the alliance of Holland, and even with all this assistance
the cause was, even as late as the year 1780, generally believed to be a
hopeless one."[53] "In fact, Washington, at this time, was prepared to
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