Posted on 07/04/2006 4:57:26 AM PDT by radar101
In June 1776, just a month before the Declaration of Independence was ratified, the white men of Barnstable, Mass., voted on whether America should break its bonds with Great Britain. The tally: 30 for independence, 35 against and 65 abstentions.
These days, the Colonists who opposed the revolution have been all but forgotten. Yet, in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, as many as a fifth of those living in America wanted to remain British subjects. Probably at least that many again were apathetic or opportunistically waiting to see which side won. The American Revolution, many historians argue, was also a civil war.
The loyalists or Tories, as the opponents of independence were known, came from all social and economic classes. An act of banishment, passed against some 300 Massachusetts loyalists in 1778, listed them by trade or profession: About a third were merchants or professional men, a third were farmers, and the rest were artisans, laborers or small shopkeepers. Many Southern slaves and American Indians also believed they would fare better under continued British rule.
Clearly, some loyalists were motivated by self-interest or greed; Britain was paying their salaries or buying their goods. Others believed only oligarchies of well-bred intellectuals were competent to govern a country. They looked down on revolutionary leaders as “men whom nobody knows.” And some were convinced that Great Britain, then the world's most powerful nation, would make short work of America's shabby rebels.
Still others, lovers of order and tradition, felt emotionally attached to Britain's flag and what it stood for – a constitutional monarchy with proven mechanisms for resolving disputes and maintaining social stability. “They pointed to the amazing growth and prosperity of the Colonies and to the great freedom they enjoyed – how much more could a reasonable man want?” wrote Wallace Brown in his 1965 book, “The King's Friends.”
The loyalists also feared the “madness of the multitude,” the violence and anarchy of rebellion and the possible despotism of an American Caesar.
“Almost all of the loyalists were, in one way or another, more afraid of America than they were of Britain,” said William H. Nelson in the 1961 “The American Tory.”
Poorly organized and without unifying leaders, the loyalists never stood a chance against the zealous Patriots. In 1774, the first Continental Congress authorized local governments to form “committees of inspection,” which would test their citizens' allegiance to independence. People who refused to take the Patriots' oath often lost their homes and were prohibited from working. The General Court of Massachusetts advised Harvard College's overseers to question their faculty and “dismiss any instructors who appeared to be unfriendly to American liberty.” At least 75,000 loyalists fled to Canada, England or the West Indies during or just after the war.
Violence against loyalists wasn't uncommon. Some were tarred and feathered. Hundreds were jailed. One Delaware loyalist, convicted of aiding and abetting the enemy, was sentenced to be hanged “but not 'til you be dead for you must be cut down alive ... and then your head must be severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters and these must be at the disposal of the Supreme Authority of the state.”
Until the 19th century, most historians of the American Revolution echoed Thomas Paine's opinion that “servile, slavish, self-interested fear (was) the foundation of Toryism.” History is, after all, written by the victors. But the Civil War helped change Americans' notions of loyalty and rebellion, and some historians began crediting loyalists with the courage to maintain a deeply unpopular minority view.
Maybe they were even men and women of principle, such as Daniel Leonard, a Massachusetts loyalist, who wrote, “When government is destroyed, whether by men who love liberty or by men who do not, there are then no laws to protect the weak against the powerful or the good against the wicked.”
We have far too much nearly forgotten history of American sacrifice in this country. (I've been digging in Michigan history a lot lately)
I wonder how many Kentuckians know the phrase "Remember the River Raisin"? It's the result of a massacre of nearly 700 Kentucky soldiers by British and Indians in 1813. In fact several Kentucky counties are named after soldiers who fought here.
And yes--there had been doubters of Washington's abilities, but he had strong support also. The doubts subsided after Trenton and Princeton--for the most part.
Mexico in a nutshell.
New Jersey too.
Not in the church I used to go to. There the pastor was warned not to support the King again from the pulpit. He did and was forcibly removed by the men of the parish. He was about to be tarred and feathered when one of the leaders talked them out of it. That was the man's last time at the church.
And no, he was not forgotten.
Thanks Caipirabob
How times change.
Today he would be awarded a Pulitzer or a Profile in Courage Award.
I swear I read this article in the Wall Street Journal.
And it is interesting. What I could understand was the fear of a revolution and the desire not to be part of it. This was not something I couldn't understand. Who in heck doesn't fear what happens and what the outcome is of a revolution.
This is interesting. And I don't think the writer was making a political point vis a vis today.
It has always amazed me how the founding fathers handled our revolution. There was no bloodbath after i.e. The French. A testament to what kind of people we are from.
There were many Indians on Cape Cod. Still are.
Men with little ambition, little vision and even less daring are very forgettable. Wonder what the world would be like today if we had remained a colony?
Roughly the same has been argued about the Rosenbergs and other communists in America by leftist academiics.
However, I don't think that's the point the writer was making.
In Cambridge, MA there were many who supported the Crown and many who were neutral. Brattle Street is still called Tory Row. It was where the wealthy Loyalists lived. They were driven out of town and many went to Canada. Their church was closed for ten years. Part of it was burned and there are still bullet holes in the walls. It is a beautiful church. Church of England, of course. Their silver service was a gift from William and Mary and is kept in the vault at the Museum of Fine Art.
You have only to study the French Revolution that happened not long afterwards to see just what it was these people had to fear. The fact that our revolution turned out as it did is a credit to the extraordinary men who saw us through that period. They were people who showed rare selflessness and discipline. We are truly blessed that we had them to lead us. Other people have not been so lucky.
I can forgive someone for being skeptical of a "great leader" claiming to be "above all that," given the ample evidence we can all point to. All men are subject to temptation and very few have what it takes to carry through and do the right thing. Washington's character, perhaps above all, set the moral tone for our government and the men who run it. His rejection of a crown and insistence on serving only two terms as president have left an amazing example that has served us well. FDRs rejection of that honorable tradition did much to tarnish the nobility of government service, particularly within his party. It's all about them, not about us. It explains a lot. They are much closer to Robespiere than Washington.
I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an open mind and an interest in our history.
There were only 100 families living in Detroit at that time. We have an old chest of drawers one of the family members living there built "way back when". It's got parts cut out of a cherry tree that must have been 20 feet WIDE.
I say, NOT SO!
It was the fact that we were independant of Britian long before WWI that allowed us to enter that war the way we did. And in WWII, would the US have been the "Arsenal of Democracy" that we were, had we not been independant?
I would love to see a book by a (an?) historian who looks at how things might have been different at every key juncture in American history, had we NOT fought the Revolutionary war, and become independant. For instance, does anything doubt for a moment that in the British military, George Patton, Douglass MacArtur, and Omar Bradley would have had a very hard time getting commands, due to their "personalities?"
Mark
AMAZING the GALL of the anti-american NYT has to publish THIS tripe on the Fourth of July celebration.
How can anyone advertise on the NYT?
The unelected are stuggling to keep their desk jobs in DC.
In Pilgrim and Puritan days sure, but the 1770s? What have you been smoking???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.