Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB
March 9, 1893
GLIMPSES OF THE PAST
Contributions to the History of Charlotte County and the Border Towns.
LVII – THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS.
[Rev. W. O. Raymond, M. A.]
4.- Character of the Loyalists.
It would be idle to contend that in their adherence to the crown all the Loyalists were influenced by the highest motives. The age in which they lived and suffered was not particularly noted for conduct that was disinterested and virtuous. In the name of historic accuracy, we venture to protest against the assumption too often made regarding the degeneracy of our own age compared with the past. Any one who reads such descriptions of New England society as are to be found in Bartlett’s life of Rev. Jacob Bailey must be convinced that the past century has brought about a material improvement, both in the decencies of society and in public morals. Nevertheless, the general character of the Loyalists stands high-their opponents themselves being the judges.
In the concluding chapter of his historical essay, Sabine gives the character of the Whigs under the following heads:
Principles of unbelief prevalent-The Whigs lose sight of their original purpose and propose conquests-Decline of public spirit-Avarice, rapacity, traffic with the enemy-Gambling, speculation, idleness, dissipation and extravagance-Want of patriotism-Recruits for the army demand enormous bounty-Shameless desertions and immoralities-Commissions in the army to men destitute of principle-Court-martials frequent and many officers cashiered-Resignations upon discreditable pretexts and alarmingly prevalent-The public mind fickle-Disastrous changes in Congress.
All these points are elaborated by Sabine, and supported by documentary evidence, amongst which is the following extract from one of Washington’s letters:
From what I have seen, heard, and in part know, I should in one word say that idleness, dissipation and extravagance seem to have laid fast hold of most; that speculation, peculation and an insatiable thirst for riches seem to have got the better of every other consideration and almost every order of men; and that party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day.
In other letters Washington laments the laxity of public morals and the many melancholy proofs of the decay of private virtue.
The bounty paid to soldiers by Congress was as high as $750 and $1000. A thousand men, the date of whose enlistment had been misplaced, perjured themselves in a body as fast as they could be sworn, in order to quit the ranks they had voluntarily entered. Many more enlisted, deserted, and re-enlisted under new recruiting officers, for the purpose of receiving double bounty.
‘In a word,’ says Sabine, ‘I fear that whippings, drummings from the service, and even military executions, were more frequent in the Revolution than at any subsequent period of our history.’ John Adams wrote, in 1777:
I am weary to death with the wrangles between military officers, high and low. They quarrel like cats and dogs. They worry one another like mastiffs, scrambling for rank and pay like monkeys for nuts.
Sabine closes his powerful arraignment of the Whigs as follows:
Such, rapidly told, is the dark story of the Revolution as concerns the winners. I relate it for several reasons: first, because it is due to the losers in the strife; second, to show that there were wicked ‘Whigs,’ as well as wicked ‘Tories;’ third, to do something to correct the exaggerated and gloomy views which are often taken of the degenerate spirit of the present times, founded on an erroneous, because on a partial estimate of the virtues of a by-gone age.
The bitterness of the contending parties was seen in the words and acts of the leaders. For instance, we find John Adams, writing from Amsterdam, Dec. 15, 1780, lamenting that the executive officers had been ‘too timid in a point which I so strenuously recommended at the first, viz., to fine, imprison and hang all inimical to the cause, without fear, favor, or affection.’ He adds, ‘I would have hanged my own brother, had he taken part with our enemy in the contest.’
Even Washington, in writing to his brother, in March, 1776, seems to express satisfaction that the Tories of Massachusetts were not suffered to remain in the country; and in another letter, referring to the exiled Loyalists that had departed with the British army for Halifax when Howe abandoned Boston, he says:
By all accounts there never existed a more miserable set of beings than these wretched creatures now are. One or two of them have done what a great number ought to have done long ago-committed suicide.
When leaders like Washington and Adams, who in succession occupied the presidential chair, could use such language, the violence of the ‘Sons of Liberty’ need not be a matter of surprise. Indeed it seems to have been the design of the leaders of the movement to imbue the popular mind with animosity against the king and all his loyal subjects. As time went on, the incendiary speeches of Samuel Adams, Philip Henry and John Adams, aided by the efforts of zealous co-workers, began to effect the popular mind. Clever writers such as James Otis, Josiah Quincy, Lee and Jefferson, scattered their pamphlets through the length and breadth of the country, by specious arguments paving the way for an appeal to the sword. The most notable production amongst the literature of the period was a pamphlet entitled ‘Common Sense,’ written by Tom Paine at the suggestion of Franklin and others. Its publication immediately after the skirmish at Lexington ensured a favorable reception. It was everywhere sought after and eagerly read. The American press and all the historians of the time speak of the electric and marvellous influence of Paine’s tirade against monarchy, against England, and in favor of independency.
Dr. Chas. Inglis, rector of Trinity Church, New York, and others, replied, but rather ineffectively, to ‘Common Sense.’1 In a letter written October 31, 1776, Dr. Inglis, speaking of Paine’s essay, said:-
It was one of the most virulent, artful and pernicious pamphlets I ever met with, and perhaps the wit of man could not devise one better calculated to do mischief. It seduced thousands. At the risk of my liberty, and even my life, I drew up an answer and had it printed here; but the answer was no sooner advertized than the whole impression was seized by the Sons of Liberty and burned. I sent a copy to Philadelphia, where it was printed.
The character of Tom Paine, even at this time, was infamous beyond a doubt, as was proved in a discussion a few years since in the columns of the New York Observer, in which he is termed ‘a blasphemous infidel and beastly drunkard.’ The Observer further quotes with approval from the London Atheneum:
A more despicable man than Tom Paine cannot be found among the ready writers of the eighteenth century. He sold himself to the highest bidder, and he could be bought at a very low price.
The following interesting incident is recorded by Mr. E. F. de Lancey in his notes to Jones’ Loyalist History of New York during the Revolutionary war:
‘What book have you got hold of, William?’ was the question Chief Justice John Jay put to his young kinsman, Wm. H. DeLancey,2 as he found the latter intently reading in his library.
‘Botta’s history of the American Revolution,’ was the reply.
‘The history of the American Revolution,’ said the Judge. ‘Well, Botta’s is the last, and perhaps the best; but let me tell you, William, the true history of the American Revolution can never be written. A great many people in those times were not at all what they seemed, nor what they are generally believed to have been.’
This conversation took place in 1821; and it may be looked upon as a calm statement made in the evening of his days, beneath his own roof and to his own relative, by a man who, perhaps, next to Washington, knew most thoroughly the facts and the men of the Revolutionary era.
Without making any extravagant claim with respect to the virtues of the Loyalists, it may be fearlessly asserted that, as a class, their honesty of purpose and integrity of character stood high. In such particulars as intelligence, education, religion, and steadfast adherence to the cause they conscientiously believed to be right, those who espoused the king’s cause will bear a more than favorable comparison with their opponents.
Among those most honest and fearless in their avowal of loyalty to the crown were men of the noblest character and highest position. In New England, the Episcopal clergy were very steadfast in their fidelity to the king. There was also a large loyal element in the humbler walks of life. It was found alike in the farmers of New England, the Quakers of Pennsylvania and the blacks of South Carolina and Georgia.
Those who occupied official positions at the beginning of the struggle naturally took the side of authority and regarded themselves as justified in standing for the ancient order of things and resisting change. They asserted that the Whig leaders were needy office hunters. Subsequently their indignation was intensified as they found their places filled by men of inferior social position, possessed of less wealth and education, and wanting in refinement of manners. To recall the words of James Allen, a Pennsylvania Loyalist:
The Revolution filled the Assembly with a wretched set, and brought all the dregs to the top.
In these days we can afford to regard with a little quiet amusement the indignation which filled the breasts of the old office bearers as they beheld their positions filled by ‘upstarts.’ Nevertheless these same old Loyalists, despite their antiquated ideas of prerogative, etc., were in general men of upright character, steadfast in adherence to the principles in which they believed, and willing to make great sacrifices for the preservation of a united British empire.
1Dr. Inglis was afterwards the first bishop of Nova Scotia. One of the few existing copies of his pamphlet is in the possession of Jonas Howe, Esq., of St. John, N. B.
2William H. DeLancey, at this time a young
clergyman, subsequently became first Bishop of Western New York.