Every country, as part of the fabric of its society, creates an historical narrative. The purpose of this “narrative” is to promote the country's triumphs and strengths, and to promote a common national identity complete with a single set of political ideals and values.
In order to do this; we tend to “bend” history to accentuate our successes and to minimize our shortcomings. We build legends around certain historical figures that played a part in the foundation, liberation, or other major event of our country’s narrative. In doing so, we often ignore significant portions of our population and, through a failure to examine the “reality” of what happened; we sometimes miss learning lessons from our past.
The first American “civil war”
This is true in the case of the American Revolution. Most people come into the hobby certain that the war pitted the British on one side, against the American colonists on the other. In fact, the conflict was much more complex and, in many places, amounted to a civil war with the American patriots on one side and the American loyalists, or Tories, on the other.
Loyalists were American colonists who, when the war broke out, chose to side, in one way or another, with the status quo and support England. No doubt, you are asking yourself, “Why would an American colonist side with England?” As you can see in this video by Yale University’s Dr. Joanne Freeman, they had a number of good reasons.
Harvard historian Maya Jasanoff, in her recent book, Liberty’s Exiles, states that loyalism “cut right across the social, geographical, racial and ethnic spectrum of early America—making Loyalists every bit as ‘American’ as their patriot fellow subjects. Loyalists included recent immigrants and Mayflower descendants alike. They could be royal officials as well as bakers, carpenters, tailors, and printers. There were Anglican ministers as well as Methodists and Quakers; cosmopolitan Bostonians and backcountry farmers in the Carolinas.”
Some reasons behind their decision
Some Loyalists were people who opposed the anarchy that the revolution seemed to offer in its early stages, the tarring and feathering and the mob-rule embodied by the vandalism and lawlessness of the Sons of Liberty and the Boston radicals.
The Sons of Liberty tar and feather a loyalist |
Some Loyalists also saw the Patriots arguments about “taxation without representation” to be nothing more than a “red herring.” At that time in England, due to population shifts that had occurred in the late 17th century and throughout the 18th century, large segments of the English population, urban centers such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bolton, Bradford and Huddersfield had no direct representation. Residents of the fast-growing London suburbs were also unrepresented unless they met the county franchise to vote in Middlesex, Surrey or Kent.
A fourth group of Loyalists, devout Anglicans, understood loyalty to the King, who was the head of the Church, and obedience to law, to be religious duties. This did not mean total submission to acts they saw as blunders, or as being unjust; this did not mean “non-resistance and passive obedience,” for no one upheld and used the right of petition and remonstrance with greater vigor than the loyalists. Only when the issue came to a choice between submission to the will of the King, Parliament, and law, or resistance by rebellion or revolution, did religious duty, in their opinion, enforce obedience.
King George III of England |
Finally, there were those who simply saw themselves, and the residents of the British colonies here in America to be Englishmen and saw loyalty to their King to be an act of patriotism just as they saw the armed rebellion of their fellow colonists to be traitorous.
The loyalists, as we have seen, were a broad cross-section of the population; that were motivated to make a stand based upon their beliefs, beliefs based in patriotism, in religion, in a rejection of mob rule, in a belief in the rule of law, and even in a desire for freedom. They were often standing for the same values that the rebels claimed to stand for, liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom to practice their religion without interference.
Were they patriots or traitors? I suspect that the answer is dependent on point of view. We do know, however, that they were certainly not villains. Rather, they were individuals of principle who risked everything in support of their beliefs in the same way that Thomas Jefferson, and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence, pledged “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” to the cause of independence.
Loyalist refugees landing in Saint Johns, N.S. after the war |
We all have other preconceived ideas about American history and the revolutionary period. Unfortunately, some of these are based upon our national narrative that, as we have seen, is sometimes distorted. If we are to interpret history to the public, in an accurate and balanced manner, then we each need to weigh our beliefs against what period documentation shows, correct those that are wrong, and incorporate a more complete understanding of our history into our interpretations.
I had a essential quetion for this and it really helped me out
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThanks for the info and perspective. Since becoming a devout Christian I have often pondered what the appropriate action should have been; I am reminded of Jesus warning in Mt 26:52 that when you live by the sword you die by the sword.
ReplyDeleteThis is very helpful, without war we wouldn't be where we are in the world today.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Loyalists should've won the war?
ReplyDeleteNot particularly. I do, however, think that loyalists are too often "demonized" in literature and popular media. I certainly can't speak for education today but when I was learning about the American Revolution in Middle School and High School the Loyalists were most often discussed as "traitors," when thet were simply fighting for and supporting what they believed in.
DeleteI am the descendant (my gggg-grandfather) of a Scottish colonist who deserted with the entire New Dorlach NY militia to join the Kings Royal Regiment of New York. In my genealogy research I was drawn into reading about "the other side" of the Revolutionary War, the side that was not taught to me in the 1960's in History class. Those who remained loyal to the Crown were no less noble or moral than those who sought independence. It was, indeed, a horrible war, and one that tore families and communities apart. Three generations of my ancestors remained in Canada until my great grandfather immigrated to the US in 1878.
ReplyDeleteHELP ME PLEASE!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy should the colonist remain loyal to king George the III
Some thought the british trade is important to the economy
DeleteBritish trade was important to the colonies, but during the "lead up" to the Revolutionary War (Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Intolerable Acts) Americans began to become less dependent on British trade through American ship captains importing (smuggling) in goods from France, Spain, and their possessions in the Caribbean Islands.
DeletePeople help me plz why should colonists stay loyal with the king? help for this is a project!
ReplyDeleteThe article outlines a number of reasons that colonists might have remained loyal to Great Britain. Please read the article and synthesize your answer from what you read there. If you have a specific question on something that is not discussed in the article I will try to answer but you ave to be making some sort of effort yourself.
Deletewhy should the colonies remain loyal to brittain?
ReplyDeletehelp
njnhijjj
Deletenjnhijjj
Deletejhgjghj
ReplyDeletejhgjghj
ReplyDeleteMerkur Futur Review - Merkur Futur - ChoeGocasino
ReplyDeleteAs a result, it has many advantages, from comfort and a huge range of features to attractive designs. In the end the Merkur Futur is a 메리트카지노 Rating: 4.2 바카라사이트 · Review 온카지노 by Luke Holmes