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
Nor can there be any doubt that the coming of the Loyalists hastened
the advent of free institutions. It was the settlement of Upper Canada
that rendered the Quebec Act of 1774 obsolete, and made necessary the
Constitutional Act of 1791, which granted to the Canadas representative
assemblies. The Loyalists were Tories and Imperialists; but, in the
colonies from which they came, they had been accustomed to a very
advanced type of democratic government, and it was not to be expected
that they would quietly reconcile themselves in their new home to the
arbitrary system of the Quebec Act. The French Canadians, on the other
hand, had not been accustomed to representative institutions, and did
not desire them. But when Upper Canada was granted an assembly, it was
impossible not to grant an assembly to Lower Canada too; and so Canada
was started on that road of constitutional development which has brought
her to her present position as a self-governing unit in the British
Empire.
CHAPTER II
LOYALISM IN THE THIRTEEN COLONIES
It was a remark of John Fiske that the American Revolution was merely a
phase of English party politics in the eighteenth century. In this view
there is undoubtedly an element of truth. The Revolution was a struggle
within the British Empire, in which were aligned on one side the American
Whigs supported by the English Whigs, and on the other side the English
Tories supported by the American Tories. The leaders of the Whig party
in England, Charles James Fox, Edmund Burke, Colonel Barré, the great
Chatham himself, all championed the cause of the American revolutionists
in the English parliament. There were many cases of Whig officers in the
English army who refused to serve against the rebels in America. General
Richard Montgomery, who led the revolutionists in their attack on Quebec
in 1775-76, furnishes the case of an English officer who, having resigned
his commission, came to America and, on the outbreak of the rebellion,
took service in the rebel forces. On the other hand there were thousands
of American Tories who took service under the king’s banner; and some of
the severest defeats which the rebel forces suffered were encountered at
their hands.
It would be a mistake, however, to identify too closely the parties in
England with the parties in America. The old Tory party in England was
very different from the so-called Tory party in America. The term Tory
in America was, as a matter of fact, an epithet of derision applied
by the revolutionists to all who opposed them. The opponents of the
revolutionists called themselves not Tories, but Loyalists or ‘friends of
government.’
There were, it is true, among the Loyalists not a few who held language
that smacked of Toryism. Among the Loyalist pamphleteers there were those
who preached the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance. Thus
the Rev. Jonathan Boucher, a clergyman of Virginia, wrote:
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