CONTENTS—The signers of the Declaration of Independence—Their
nativity—Injustice of American writers for 80 years—Cast back
mis-statements—The whigs had been U. E. Loyalists—Hancock—
Office-seekers—Malcontents stir up strife—What the fathers of the
Republic fought for—Rebel committees—Black mail—Otis, John Adams,
Warren, Washington, Henry, Franklin—What caused them to rebel—What
the American revolutionary heroes actually were—Cruelty, during
and after the war—No freedom—The political mistake of the rebels
in alienating the loyalists—The consequence—Motives of the
loyalists—False charges—Conscientious conservatives—Rebellion not
warranted—Attachment to the old flag—Loyalists driven away—
_Suppressio veri_—Want of noble spirit towards the South—Effects—
Comparison between loyalists and rebels—Education—Religion—The
neutral—The professions.
Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence nine were
born in Massachusetts, seven in Virginia, six in Maryland, five in
Connecticut, four in New Jersey, four in Pennsylvania, four in South
Carolina, three in New York, three in Delaware, two in Rhode Island, one
in Maine, three in Ireland, two in England, two in Scotland, and one in
Wales. Of these twenty-one were attornies; ten merchants; four
physicians; three farmers; one clergyman; one printer; and ten men of
fortune.
THE MOTIVES.
But let us more carefully consider the motives in connection with the
rebellion of ‘76. So assiduously have our fathers, the U. E. Loyalists,
been branded by most American writers as altogether base, that it
becomes us to cast back the mis-statements—to tear away the specious
covering of the American revolutionary heroes, and throw the sunlight of
truth upon their character, and dispel the false, foul stigma, which the
utterances of eighty years have essayed to fasten upon the noble band of
Loyalists.
Up to 1776, the whigs as well as the tories were United Empire
Loyalists; and it was only when the king’s forces required taxes; when
the colonists were requested no longer to smuggle; when they could not
dispossess the tories of the power and emoluments of office—it was only
then that the Declaration of Independence was signed by those more
particularly interested. John Hancock, whose name stands first upon the
document, in such bold characters, had been a successful smuggler,
whereby he had acquired his millions, and no wonder he staked his
thousands on the issue. Evidence is not wanting to show that many of the
leaders of the rebellion, had they been holders of office, would have
been as true to the British Crown as were those whom they envied. Every
man who took part on the rebel side has been written a hero; but it is
asking too much to request us to believe that all the holders of office
were base, and lost to the feelings of natural independence and
patriotism; more especially when a large proportion of them were,
admittedly, educated and religious men; while, on the contrary, the
rebels alone were actuated by patriotism and the nobler feelings of
manhood. Apart from the merits or demerits of their cause, it must be
admitted that the circumstances of the times force upon us the thought
that a comparatively few needy office-seekers, or lookers-after other
favors from the Crown, not being able to obtain the loaves and fishes,
began to stir up strife. A few, possessed of sufficient education, by
the aid of the wealthy contraband traders, were enabled, by popular
sensational speeches and inflammatory pamphlets, to arouse the feelings
of the uneducated; and, finally, to create such a current of political
hatred to the Crown that it could not be stayed, and which swept away
the ties that naturally attached them to Great Britain.
We may easily imagine the surprise which many experienced in after days,
when the war had ended and their independence was acknowledged, to find
themselves heroes, and their names commemorated as fathers of their
country; whereas they had fought only for money or plunder, or smuggled
goods, or because they had not office. In not a few cases it is such
whose names have served for the high-sounding fourth of July orators;
for the buncombe speechifier and the flippant editor, to base their
eulogistic memoriams. Undoubtedly there are a few entitled to the place
they occupy in the temple of fame; but the vast majority seem to have
been actuated by mercenary motives. We have authenticated cases where
prominent individuals took sides with the rebels because they were
disappointed in obtaining office; and innumerable instances where
wealthy persons were arrested, ostensibly on suspicion, and compelled to
pay large fines, and then set at liberty. No feudal tyrant of Europe in
the olden times enforced black mail from the traveller with less
compunction than rebel “committees” exacted money from wealthy
individuals who desired simply to remain neutral.
It has been said that Otis, a name revered by the Americans, actually
avowed that he “would set Massachusetts in a flame, though he should
perish in the fire.” For what? Not because he wanted liberty, but
because his father was not appointed to a vacant judgeship! It is
alleged that John Adams was at a loss which side to take, and finally
became a rebel because he was refused a commission in the peace! It is
said that Joseph Warren was a broken-down man, and sought, amid the
turmoil of civic strife, to better his condition. And the immortal
Washington, it is related, and has never been successfully contradicted,
was soured against the mother county because he was not retained in the
British army in reward for his services in the French war. Again,
Richard Henry was disappointed in not receiving the office of stamp
distributor, which he solicited. Franklin was vexed because of
opposition to his great land projects and plans of settlement on the
Ohio. Indeed it is averred that mostly all the prominent whigs who sided
with the rebels were young men, with nothing to lose and everything to
gain by political changes and civil war. Thus it will be seen that the
so-called American revolutionary heroes have not altogether clean hands,
however much they may have been washed by their descendants. The
clothing placed upon them may conceal the dirt and dross and blood, but
they are indelibly there.
It is not alone the motives which constituted the mainsprings of the
rebels’ action that we place in the balance, but their conduct towards
those who differed from them. Individual instances of cruelty we shall
have occasion to introduce; but it may here be said that it was the
tories who acted as the conservators of peace against a mobocracy, and
consequently were made to suffer great afflictions. It was because of
this they were forced away to live and die as aliens to the land of
their birth. The tories were Americans as well as the whigs; and when at
last Great Britain ceased to try to coerce the colonies, and their
independence was secured, then a nobler spirit should have obtained
among the conquerors, and no one, because he had conscientiously been a
conservative, should have been treated with opprobrium. It always
becomes the victorious to be generous; and we, with all respect to many
American friends, submit that, had patriotism alone actuated the
revolutionary party, the American loyalists would have been invited to
join with the whigs in erecting a mighty nation. Had _freedom_, indeed,
been the watchword then, as it has flauntingly been since, it would have
been conceded that the tory had a right to his opinion as well as the
whig to his. Do the Americans descant upon the wisdom and far-seeing
policy of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and framed
the constitution of the Union? Monroe, we doubt not, had a different
opinion when he begot the doctrine “America for the Americans.” Had the
U. E. Loyalists been treated honorably; had they been allowed but their
rights; had they not been driven away; then the name _British American_
would forever have passed away; and instead of a belt of British
provinces on their north, to constitute a ceaseless cause of
misunderstanding with England, the star-spangled banner would,
doubtless, long ago, have peacefully floated over all our land. Looking
at the subject from this (an American) stand-point, we see that a
shortsighted policy—a vindictive feeling, a covetous desire for the
property of the tories—controlled the movements of the hour; and when
the terms of peace were signed the birthright of the American tory was
signed away, and he became forever an alien. But, as we shall see, he,
in consequence, became the founder of a Province which, like a rock, has
resisted, and ever will resist, the northward extension of the United
States.
MOTIVES OF THE LOYALISTS.
Whatever may have been the incentives to rebellion, yielded to by those
who revolted, there cannot rest upon the mind of the honest reader of
unbiassed history a doubt as to the motives of the loyalists. The
home-spun eulogists of the United States revolutionary soldiers have
never ceased to dwell upon the principles which fired the breasts of the
patriots, and nerved their arms to deeds of daring and successful
warfare; all the time observing silence respecting the bravery of those
who, from the same walks of life, engaged in the strife as the
determined antagonists to rebellion. They have again and again charged
upon the “king’s men” that it was because they were servants of the
Crown and feeders at the government stall that loyalty was assumed and
fought for. But facts, when allowed to stand out uncovered by the cant
of liberatists, declare, in words that may not be gainsayed, that there
were a vast number who held no appointment under the Crown, yet who,
from first to last, were true—naturally true—to their king and country.
The great mass were essentially conservatives, called “tories.” They
held the opinion that to rebel was not only unnecessary but wrong. They
believed that the evils of which the colonists had just reason to
complain were not so great as to justify the extreme step taken by the
signers of the Declaration of Independence; that any injustice existing
was but temporary and would, when properly and calmly represented to the
home government, be remedied; that to convulse the colonies in war was
an unjustifiably harsh procedure; and, entertaining such a belief, it is
submitted that they were noble indeed in standing up for peace—for more
moderate measures. Moreover, not unlikely, many were impressed with the
view that the disaffected were laboring under an erroneous idea of
oppression; that the training incident to pioneer life, the previous
wars with the French Canadians, the constant contentions with the
Indians, had begotten false views of their rights, and made them too
quick to discover supposed wrongs. Candidly impressed with such
thoughts, they could not be otherwise than true to the natural instincts
of their heart, and refuse to take part, or acquiesce in throwing
overboard the government of England, and so become aliens to the flag
under which they were born and had lived, and for which they had fought.
Not many may cast aside their feelings of nationality; not many can
forget the land of their birth; not a large number will bury the
associations of a life-time without the most potent causes. And,
doubtless, the Anglo-American who faithfully adhered to the old flag
possessed all the ardor of a lofty patriotism. But the American writer
has forgotten all this. In the broad sunlight of national success he has
not discovered the sacred longings of the U. E. Loyalists for the Union
Jack. Looking at the events of ‘76 by the lurid glare of civil war, his
eyes are blinded to the fact that a noble band, possessing equal rights
with the rebels, loved England, notwithstanding all her faults, and for
that love sacrificed their all of worldly goods. The citizens of the
United States would prefer to have it said in history that the U. E.
Loyalists, in every instance, voluntarily left their homes during the
war, or at its close. The loyalists are thereby, no doubt, made to
appear more devotedly attached to the British Crown. But it is right to
have it distinctly stated that American writers mostly make themselves
guilty of _suppressio veri_. The latest instance of this is seen in a
report to the Hon. Hugh McCullough, Secretary of the Treasury, prepared
by E. H. Derby, Commissioner of the Treasury Department, dated January
1st, 1866, who, in remarking upon the British Colonial policy from 1776
down to 1830, takes occasion to say that, “at first there was little
fellowship between the United States and the Provincialists, many of
whom were descended from the loyalists who _followed_ the British troops
from our shores.” The fact is, however, that many of them were driven
away. The tories were not loyal without sense; and when the fortune of
war had turned against them, they would, in great numbers, have made the
best of their changed condition, and have lived to become true citizens
of the new-born nation. But this was not to be. The loyalists were to be
made feel that they were outcasts. It is the same ignoble and
unstatesmanlike course which is now being pursued toward the subdued
South. They must needs be made to know they are rebels. It is a
shortsighted policy, even as the former was. The former led to the
establishment of a nation to their north, which will stand, even after
the Union lies in fragments; the latter fosters a feeling of alienation,
which will speak upon the first opportunity, in the thunder tones of
war.
If a comparison is instituted between the rebels of 1776, and those who
were conservators of peace, the contrast is found to be very great. It
is charged against the loyalists that all office-holders were tories;
but is this more worthy of remark than the fact that many became rebels
because they could not obtain office. Nay, the latter is infinitely more
heinous in its nature. If we look at the two parties, with respect to
education and, it may be added, religion, it is found that the great
bulk of the educated and refined, the religious classes, especially the
clergy, the leading lawyers, the most prominent medical men, were all
loyalists. It was not because they were office-holders, it was because
they possessed a moral and elevated mind, educated to a correct
standard. Then, again, there was a large class of citizens who loved
retirement, and who begged to be allowed to remain neutral, but who were
actually compelled to take sides with the rebels or be driven away.
The peaceably inclined, who looked for guidance to their spiritual
instructors, generally beheld them, if not actually advocating the
interests of the crown, at least setting an example against rebellion,
and they were thus strengthened in their feelings of loyalty, or
determination to remain neutral. The flame of patriotism was kept aglow
in many a heart by the earnest prayer of the gospel minister. Says
Sabine: “From what has now been said it is evident that a very
considerable proportion of the professional and editorial intelligence
and talents of the thirteen colonies was arrayed against the popular
movement.” Again: “a large number of the clergy were United Empire
Loyalists.” Also, “the giants of the law were nearly all loyalists.” The
physicians were mostly tories, but were, as a general thing, not
molested. “A few were banished; others became surgeons in the army.”