The United Empire Loyalists: A Chronicle of the Great Migration [1920 ed.]Wallace, W. Stewart (William Stewart)
History
The United Empire Loyalists: A Chronicle of the Great Migration [1920 ed.]
Wallace, W. Stewart (William Stewart)
American loyalists; United Empire loyalists
In the negotiations leading up to the Peace of Versailles there were
no clauses so long and bitterly discussed as those relating to the
Loyalists. The British commissioners stood out at first for the principle
of complete amnesty to them and restitution of all they had lost; and
it is noteworthy that the French minister added his plea to theirs. But
Benjamin Franklin and his colleagues refused to agree to this formula.
They took the ground that they, as the representatives merely of the
Continental Congress, had not the right to bind the individual states in
such a matter. The argument was a quibble. Their real reason was that
they were well aware that public opinion in America would not support
them in such a concession. A few enlightened men in America, such as John
Adams, favoured a policy of compensation to the Loyalists, ‘how little
soever they deserve it, nay, how much soever they deserve the contrary’;
but the attitude of the great majority of the Americans had been clearly
demonstrated by a resolution passed in the legislature of Virginia on
December 17, 1782, to the effect that all demands for the restitution of
confiscated property were wholly inadmissible. Even some of the Loyalists
had begun to realize that a revolution which had touched property was
bound to be permanent, and that the American commissioners could no more
give back to them their confiscated lands than Charles II was able to
give back to his father’s cavaliers the estates they had lost in the
Civil War.
[Illustration: LORD CORNWALLIS
From the painting in the National Portrait Gallery]
The American commissioners agreed, finally, that no future confiscations
should take place, that imprisoned Loyalists should be released, that
no further persecutions should be permitted, and that creditors on
either side should ‘meet with no lawful impediment’ to the recovery of
all good debts in sterling money. But with regard to the British demand
for restitution, all they could be induced to sign was a promise that
Congress would ‘earnestly recommend to the legislatures of the respective
states’ a policy of amnesty and restitution.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account