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
become a guerilla." In case of being further pressed, he said: "We must
retire to Augusta County, in Virginia. Numbers will repair to us for
safety, and we will then try a predatory war. If overpowered, we must
cross the Allegheny Mountains."[54]
[53] "The American Revolution and Boer War," By Sidney Fisher, 1902.
[54] Irving's "Life of Washington," Vol. II., chap. xli.
The question will naturally be asked why, if they were so numerous, were
they not more successful, why did they yield to popular violence in New
England, and desert the country while the contest was going on, Why did
they not hold the Southern States, and keep them from joining the others
in the Continental Congresses, and in the war?
In the first place, a negative attitude is necessarily an inactive one,
and in consequence of this, and the fact that they could not take the
initiative in action, the Loyalists were put at a disadvantage before
the much better organization of the Revolutionary leaders. Though these
were few in number in the South, they were of families of great social
influence, and in the North were popular agitators of long experience.
They manipulated the committee system so carefully that the colonies
found themselves, before they were aware of the tendency of the actions
of their deputies, involved in proceedings of very questionable
legality, such as the boycotting agreement known as the "American
Association," and other proceedings of the Continental Congress.[55] In
regard to the subject of legal attainder and exile, Mr. Sabine remarks,
very moderately and sensibly: "Nor is it believed that either the
banishment or the confiscation laws, as they stood, were more expedient
than just. The latter did little towards relieving the public
necessities, and served only to create a disposition for rapacity, and
to increase the wealth of favored individuals. Had the estates which
were seized and sold been judiciously or honestly managed, a
considerable sum would have found its way to the treasury; but, as it
was, the amount was inconsiderable. Some of the wisest and purest Whigs
of the time hung their heads in shame because of the passage of measures
so unjustifiable, and never ceased to speak of them in terms of
reprobation. Mr. Jay's disgust was unconquerable, and he never would
purchase any property that had been forfeited under the Confiscation Act
of New York."[56]
[55] "Essays in American History," 179. See also "Royalists' Archives,"
Mass. State House.
[56] "North American Review," LIX., page 280.
Judge Curwen, a Salem Loyalist, says: "So infamously knavish has been
the conduct of the commissioners, that though frequent attempts have
been made to bring them to justice and to respond for the produce of the
funds resting in their hands, so numerous are the defaulters in that
august body, the _General Court_, that all efforts have hitherto proved
in vain. Not two pence on the pound have arrived to the public treasury
of all the confiscation."[57]
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