The United Empire Loyalists: A Chronicle of the Great Migration [1920 ed.] — John Shaqi
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
But the event which brought the greatest reinforcement to the Loyalist
ranks was the Declaration of Independence. Six months before the
Declaration of Independence was passed by the Continental Congress, the
Whig leaders had been almost unanimous in repudiating any intention of
severing the connection between the mother country and the colonies.
Benjamin Franklin told Lord Chatham that he had never heard in America
one word in favour of independence ‘from any person, drunk or sober.’
Jonathan Boucher says that Washington told him in the summer of 1775
‘that if ever I heard of his joining in any such measures, I had his
leave to set him down for everything wicked.’ As late as Christmas Day
1775 the revolutionary congress of New Hampshire officially proclaimed
their disavowal of any purpose ‘aiming at independence.’ Instances such
as these could be reproduced indefinitely. When, therefore, the Whig
leaders in the summer of 1776 made their right-about-face with regard
to independence, it is not surprising that some of their followers fell
away from them. Among these were many who were heartily opposed to the
measures of the British government, and who had even approved of the
policy of armed rebellion, but who could not forget that they were born
British subjects. They drank to the toast, ‘My country, may she always be
right; but right or wrong, my country.’
Other motives influenced the growth of the Loyalist party. There
were those who opposed the Revolution because they were dependent on
government for their livelihood, royal office-holders and Anglican
clergymen for instance. There were those who were Loyalists because they
thought they had picked the winning side, such as the man who candidly
wrote from New Brunswick in 1788, ‘I have made one great mistake in
politics, for which reason I never intend to make so great a blunder
again.’ Many espoused the cause because they were natives of the British
Isles, and had not become thoroughly saturated with American ideas: of
the claimants for compensation before the Royal Commissioners after
the war almost two-thirds were persons who had been born in England,
Scotland, or Ireland. In some of the colonies the struggle between Whig
and Tory followed older party lines: this was especially true in New
York, where the Livingston or Presbyterian party became Whig and the
De Lancey or Episcopalian party Tory. Curiously enough the cleavage
in many places followed religious lines. The members of the Church
of England were in the main Loyalists; the Presbyterians were in the
main revolutionists. The revolutionist cause was often strongest in
those colonies, such as Connecticut, where the Church of England was
weakest. But the division was far from being a strict one. There were
even members of the Church of England in the Boston Tea Party; and there
were Presbyterians among the exiles who went to Canada and Nova Scotia.
The Revolution was not in any sense a religious war; but religious
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