CONTENTS—American Writers—Sabine—Loyalists had no time to waste—
Independence not sought at first—Adams—Franklin—Jay—Jefferson—
Washington—Madison—The British Government—Ingratitude of the
Colonists—Taxation—Smugglers—Crown Officers—Persistence—
Superciliousness—Contest between Old England and New England.
It is most refreshing to one who has been accustomed to see American
school books, and even religious American tracts thickly strewn with the
most fulsome self-praise, and wordy accounts of British tyranny, and of
American purity and valor; to read the speeches, and listen to 4th of
July orators, who, with distorted history and hifalutin panegyrics, have
not ceased to wrap their country in a blazing sheet of glory. After
suffering all this, _ad nauseam_, it is most agreeable to read the
writings of one American author upon the subject of their Independence,
who can do some justice to the Loyalists. Reference is made to Lorenzo
Sabine, the author of “Royalists of the American Revolution.”
Considering the prejudices which exist throughout the United States
against every thing British, and the overweening vanity of the people in
respect to the success which crowned their efforts to dismember the
British Empire; it is a matter for grateful recognition that a native of
New England should take up his pen to write redeeming words on behalf of
the Loyalists whom they had been taught to stigmatize, to be read by his
fellow countrymen. Living upon the borders, beyond which he could see
the settled refugees working out their destiny, under adverse
circumstances, and laying the foundation of a nation, he took up his
pen, while the Upper Canadians were yet struggling with the forest, and
without time to gather up the records of their wrongs, their losses,
their persecutions, and more than all, the malicious charges against
them; and hurl them back at their traducers. On behalf of those who will
accept the writer as a representative of the United Empire Loyalists, he
thanks Lorenzo Sabine, for what he has said. He has said nothing but the
substantial truth in our favor, and in saying that, he has said very
much. In his prefatory remarks, after referring to their deficiency of
knowledge of the “Tories” he says, “The reason is obvious. Men who, like
the Loyalists, separate themselves from their friends and kindred, who
are driven from their homes, who surrender the hopes and expectations of
life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and exiles,—such men leave few
memorials behind them. Their papers are scattered and lost, and their
very names pass from human recollections.”
Before considering the question, whether the American colonies were
justified in taking an extreme step; it is most necessary to state that,
at the first there were but an insignificant number of the colonists who
held the belief that armed rebellion was demanded. Even among those who,
with no mild-toned language denounced the mother country for enacting
laws oppressive to the commerce and industry of the Americans, no one
was found to advocate separation; on the contrary to use the words of
Sabine “The denial that independence was the final object, was constant
and general.” To obtain concessions and preserve the connection with
England, was affirmed everywhere; and John Adams, years after the peace,
went further than this, for he said ‘_There was not a moment during the
Revolution, when I would not have given everything I possessed for a
restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we
could have had a sufficient security for its continuance_.’ Again,
Franklin’s testimony, a few days before the affair at Lexington, was,
that he had “more than once travelled from one end of the continent to
the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking, and
conversing with them freely, and never _had heard in any conversation
from any person drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for
separation, or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous to
America_.” Mr. Jay is quite as explicit. “During the course of my life
and until the second petition of Congress in 1775, _I never did hear an
American of any class, of any description, express a wish for the
independence of the colonies_. It has always, and still is, my opinion
and belief, that our country was prompted and impelled to independence
by _necessity_, and not by _choice_.” Says Mr. Jefferson, “What,
eastward of New York, might have been the dispositions toward England
before the commencement of hostilities, I know not, but _before that_ I
never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great Britain,
_and after that_, _its possibility_ was contemplated with affliction by
all.” Washington, in 1774, sustained these declarations, and, in the
“Fairfax County Resolves” it was complained, that “_malevolent
falsehoods_” were propagated by the ministry to prejudice the mind of
the king; _particularly_ that there is an intention in the American
colonies to _set up for independent States_; and Washington expressed a
wish that the “dispute might be left to posterity to determine.” Mr.
Madison was not in public life until May, 1776, but he says, “It has
always been my impression, that a _re-establishment of the colonial
relations_ to the _parent country_, _as they were previous to the
controversy_, was the real object of _every_ class of the people, till
the despair of obtaining it.”
The testimony of these Fathers of the Republic, cannot be impeached;
and, we must, therefore, seek for the cause of the rebellion in some
other place. We have seen how the British colonies were planted. In
connection with them, two leading influences may be discovered
constantly at work, one of a personal nature; the other referring to the
State. Individuals would not sever the ties of home-ship and brave the
wide ocean, to expose themselves to the varied dangers of the
wilderness, did they not have good reason to expect due returns. The
Government would not afford ships and means to send her sons to distant
shores, unless the colony would become serviceable to the parent State.
The British Government had enabled many a hardy son to lay the
foundation for substantial wealth. More than all, the colonies of
America had been assisted to put under their feet their French rival.
For their benefit the Crown expected, and undertook to enforce some
tribute. But the colonists would not recognize the right of the Crown to
tax them for their labor. For all the British Government had done for
the colonies, for all the money spent, she required that the colonists
should be taxed. Laws were enacted, and officers and revenue collectors
appointed to enforce the laws. It was required that these colonies
should not trade, without certain restrictions, with foreign nations;
but the merchants of Massachusetts, having tasted the sweets of
unrestricted trade, were unwilling to pay revenue to the Crown, although
trading under the protection of the British flag. And so it came that
when royal collectors of customs were sent out; when men of war coasted
the shores of Massachusetts to prevent smuggling, by Hancock and others,
there was no disposition to submit to Imperial taxation. For years the
law relating to revenue had been a dead letter almost, the smugglers
having used hush money. But at last Government determined to put down
illicit trade. It is true the colonies did not object without a special
plea, which was “no taxation without representation.” But the real
points at issue were, whether contraband commerce should continue and
increase, or the Crown receive the dues demanded by law. “Nine-tenths
probably, of all the tea, wine, fruit, sugar, and molasses, consumed in
the colonies were smuggled. To put this down was the determined purpose
of the ministry. The commanders of the ships of war on the American
station were accordingly commissioned as officers of the customs; and,
to quicken their zeal, they were to share in the proceeds of the
confiscations; the courts to decide upon the lawfulness of seizures,
were to be composed of a single judge, without a jury, whose emoluments
were to be derived from his own condemnations; the Governors of the
colonies and the military officers were to be rewarded for their
activity by swearing also, either in the property condemned, or in the
penalties annexed to the interdicted trade.” And was not the Crown
correct in enforcing laws intended for the public weal? Had hostile
fleets approached Boston harbour to invade, instead of smuggling crafts,
freighted with luxuries, would not the colonist have called loudly for
Imperial help to protect? But if the Government had the best of rights
to enforce the laws, it certainly displayed much want of judgment in the
mode adopted to carry out its demands. The foregoing, from Sabine,
recalls to us at once the cause why resistance was strenuously made. The
mode of paying their Crown officers was well calculated to kindle
feelings of the most determined opposition on the part of the illicit
traders, such as John Hancock, John Langdon, Samuel Adams, William
Whipple, George Clymer, Stephen Hopkins, Francis Louis, Philip
Livingston, Eldridge Gerry, Joseph Hewes, George Taylor, Roger Sherman,
Button Gurnett, and Robert Morris, all signers of the declaration of
independence,—all smugglers!
And thus it came about. The Crown was determined to exact taxes, and
ignorant of the feelings of the colonists; and the colonists, grown rich
by unrestricted trade—by smuggling, entered into a contract, which was
only to end in dismemberment of the British Empire. Side issues were
raised, cries of oppression shouted, the love of liberty invoked and
epithets bandied; but they were only for effect, to inflame the public
mind, of which there was much wavering. Of course, there were other
things which assisted to ripen rebellion, at least were so represented,
that they added to the growing discontent. Colonies, when they have
become developed by age, and powerful by local circumstances, will
naturally lose the interest which animates the subject at home. It is in
the nature of things that the love of country should gradually change
from the old home to the new. The inhabitants of the colonies were in
many cases but descendants of European nations, who could not be
expected to retain the warmest attachment to the parent country. The
tide of war had changed the allegiance of many a one. The heterogeneous
whole could not be called English, and hence it was more easy to cast
aside the noble feeling called patriotism. Then there were jealousies of
the Crown officers, and everything undertaken by the home government,
having the appearance of change, was promptly suspected as being
intended to degrade them. The exclusiveness of the regular army and
superciliousness to the provincial troops, during the French war, caused
many a sting, and the thought of insult to the provincial officer
remained to rankle and fester in the mind of many a military aspirant.
The proposal to introduce Episcopal Bishops, to give precedence to the
Established Church, had its effect upon many, yet many of the
non-conformists were equally loyal.
The contest was originally between New England and Old England. While
the Middle and Southern States were for peace, or moderate measures, the
north sedulously worked to stir up strife by disseminating specious
statements and spreading abroad partisan sentiments. Massachusetts took
the lead. Founded by Puritans, (who, themselves were the most intolerant
bigots and became the greatest persecutors America has seen,) these
States possessed the proper elements with which to kindle discontent.
Thus we have learned that independence was not the primary object of
revolt, and we have seen that the leaders in rebellion were principally
New Englanders, and were actuated mainly by mercenary motives, unbounded
selfishness and bigotry.