HOME

Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB
March 16, 1893

GLIMPSES OF THE PAST

Contributions to the History of Charlotte County and the Border Towns.

LVIII – THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS.

[Rev. W. O. Raymond, M. A.]

5.- Loyalist Principles.

It has been affirmed that the difference between the two parties in the colonies at the commencement of the struggle with the mother country was simply this-the Whigs were willing to remain colonists provided their grievances were redressed and their rights secured; while the Tories were contented thus to continue without such security.¹  This is the assumption of nearly all American writers; but it is an assumption unfair to the Loyalists, and not warranted in point of fact.

The truly loyal subjects of the king-those who acted from the highest motives, and eventually sacrificed their all in an effort to maintain the integrity of the empire-were as keenly sensitive to the injustice of the government of the day in its dealings with American subjects as were those of their countrymen who took up arms; but their warm attachment to the mother country enabled them more temperately to view the situation.  They were not unmindful of the benefits derived from British protection in the past.  They had not yet forgotten the great conflict waged with France on behalf of the colonies.  They believed that the English nation would yet be aroused to a sense of its duty, and that a solution of the problem might be attained by constitutional means.

Holding such views as these, the Loyalists heartily participated in the first Congress at Philadelphia, held in September, 1774.  Their sentiments are very well expressed by Judge Thomas Jones, himself a Loyalist, in these words:

A redress of grievances, and a firm union between Great Britain and America upon constitutional principles, was their only aim.  This they hoped for, this they wished for, this they expected.  To this purport they also verbally instructed the delegates.  These sanguine hopes were frustrated by the artful cabals of the republicans in Congress, and the wished for and so much desired reconciliation blasted by a hasty, ill-judged and precipitate adoption by Congress of a set of resolves made at a town meeting in the county of Suffolk in the province of Massachusetts, which contained in almost express terms a declaration of war against Great Britain.

The sentiment of opposition to the oppressive measures of the British ministry, if not absolutely unanimous, was substantially so at this time throughout the provinces.  We have the positive avowals of Washington, Franklin and John Adams, that up to the assembling of Congress the vast majority of the people had not thought of independence or of seeking anything beyond a peaceful redress of grievances.  This point is further established by the instructions given by the various provinces to their delegates in the first Congress.  Massachusetts, which contained the largest republican element of any, bade her delegates ‘deliberate and determine upon wise and proper measures to be by them recommended to all the colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just rights, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently desired by all good men.’

It was not, however, the intention of such men as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Hancock, Gadsden, Lee, John Adams and Jefferson to rest content with the moderate line of action suggested by those whose ideas they were supposed to represent.  They pursued a shrewd yet cautious policy, which, aided by opportune provocations brought about by the obstinacy and stupidity of the king and his ministers, at length led to an open rupture.

The president of the Massachusetts Historical Society,² in a thoughtful article on the American Revolution, admits this.  He says:

Congress was generally in advance of its constituency.  It knew how to temporize and to give intervals of pause in steadily working on to its ultimate declaration. . . Instead of any healing of the breach, the whole activity of Congress tended to widen it.  A regret was expressed in some quarters that by the connivance and consent of the royal governors and through the legislative processes a more legal and conservative character had not been secured to this meeting of delegates-as if dangerous plotting might thereby have been averted.  But the patriot leaders of the movement were too well advised to look for any such official co-operation. . . . The whole method of the steady strengthening of the spirit of alienation from Great Britain was a working of popular feeling in channels different from those of ordinary official direction and oversight.

The conduct of those Loyalists who supported the remonstrances of the first Congress touching the grievances of the colonies, but who afterwards strongly opposed the dismemberment of the empire, has been very unfairly represented by Sabine and other American writers.

Take the case of Joseph Galloway, of Philadelphia, as representative of others.

He was a lawyer of great abilities, a man of wealth and of high social position.  He had made many strong protests against the oppressive measures of the English government.  He was a member of the Pennsylvania assembly for eighteen years, and twelve years its speaker.  At the Congress of 1774 he represented his native province, the delegates of which were ‘strictly charged to avoid everything indecent and disrespectful to the mother state.’  Being a man of keen discernment, he soon perceived the general tendency of Congress; consequently, when chosen a delegate to the second Congress he positively declined to serve, although importuned to do so by Dr. Franklin.  The instructions given to the Pennsylvania delegates at the second Congress contained the stringent words, ‘We strictly enjoin you that you, in behalf of this colony, dissent from and utterly reject any proposition-should any such be made-that may cause or lead to a separation from the mother country, or a change of the form of government.’

In a letter addressed to Dr. Franklin about this time, Galloway gives his reasons for refusing to be again a delegate.  The general tenor of the letter may be gathered from the following passage:

A certain sect of people, if I may judge from all their late conduct, seem to look on this as a favorable opportunity of establishing their republican principles and of throwing off all connection with the mother country.  I have reason to think that they are forming a private union among themselves from one end of the continent to the other.

With any scheme looking to the dismemberment of the empire, Joseph Galloway had no sympathy whatever; and he accordingly speedily disassociated himself from those with whom he had heretofore acted.  Is his conduct in so doing to be stigmatized as that of a traitor?  Is it not rather the only line of conduct he could follow consistent with his principles?  He had joined heart and hand with those who professed to be seeking only a redress of grievances by constitutional means.  He had found the course pursued by the extreme Whigs to be marked by insincerity and duplicity-that outward professions of loyalty but thinly veiled the spirit of rebellion.

A pamphlet from the pen of Galloway was printed in London in 1780.  In it, after commenting severely upon the injustice of Great Britain, he goes on to argue that the rebellion did not spring from a dread of being enslaved.  The movement in favor of independence was the natural outcome of the republican ideas cherished by the Puritans.  He deemed it not unreasonable that the colonies, having now attained a good degree of prosperity, with a population more than a quarter that of Great Britain, should contribute to the support of a government that had fostered their infancy, espoused their quarrels, and at enormous cost defended them.  He defines the policies of the two parties in America-the one looking towards the securing of just claims with a redress of grievances on the basis of a solid constitutional union with England, and opposed to sedition and all acts of violence-the other resolved by all means, even though covert and fraudulent, to throw off allegiance, appeal to arms, run the venture of anarchy, and assert and if possible attain independence.  The latter party, acting with some temporary reserve and caution, opposed all peaceable propositions and covertly worked for their own ends, till finally the mask was thrown off, and the casting vote of the ‘timid and variable Mr. Dickinson’ carried the Declaration of Independence.

Some additional light as regards the line of conduct followed by leading Loyalists is afforded in the published life of Peter Van Schaack, LL.D., embracing selections from his correspondence and other writings during the Revolution.  Van Schaack was educated at Kings (now Columbia) college, New York.  He attained distinction as a lawyer, and gained the friendship of such men as John Jay, R. R. Livingstone and Theodore Sedgwick-a friendship not broken  by the events of the Revolution.

Van Schaack acted in complete accord with those who-whilst contending that the measures of the British ministry were arbitrary, oppressive and unjust, and should be opposed and resisted by remonstrance, petition and all legitimate means-were strongly against proceeding to armed rebellion.  He firmly held to the opinion that an unbroken connection with the mother country was essential to the prosperity of the colonies, and that a civil war would result in anarchy.  He spoke and acted with the Whigs till the crisis arrived and recourse was had to arms.  Then he withstood such extreme action and sought to maintain a position of quiet neutrality in his native village.  This, however, was not allowed him.  He was summoned before the committee on conspiracies, and ordered to take an oath asserting the independence of his State.  Refusing to comply with this demand, he was forced to seek an asylum in England.

Another old document of interest in this connection is the diary of James Allen, Esq., of Philadelphia.  Here is an extract:

When Gen. Howe was expected in Philadelphia, a persecution of Tories (under which name is included every one disinclined to Independence, though ever so warm a friend to constitutional liberty and the old cause) began.

The writer of the diary was one of the four sons of Chief Justice William Allen, of Pennsylvania.  The members of the Allen family, without exception, sympathized strongly with those who joined in protesting against the oppressive measures of the king and his ministers.  They participated in all the early efforts for a redress of grievances; but when the question of dismemberment of the empire arose all the brothers withdrew from their former associates.  One of them raised a corps of Pennsylvania Loyalists, which he commanded till the close of the war, when he came to St. John, N. B., and was a grantee of that city in 1783.  The diarist, James Allen, whilst avowing his real sentiments, sought by prudence to protect himself from harsh treatment; which, however, he found he could not avert.  He died during the war (September, 1778).  The three remaining brothers were each attainted of treason, and lost their estates under the confiscation acts.

The examples mentioned will suffice to emphasize the fact that the Loyalists as a class were not the unhesitating supporters of the home government in its unjustifiable treatment of the American colonies.

To sum up what has been said regarding the attitude of the Loyalists at the commencement of hostilities, we first of all note that the sentiment of opposition to the oppressive measures of the British ministry was almost unanimous throughout the colonies.  The Loyalists were not reconciled to the endurance of the situation as then existing; but they believed the attainment of redress to be possible in the near future without the alternative of a bloody civil war.  They had able and influential friends in the mother country.  Should the present ministry continue obdurate, there was every probability that their successors would do justice to America.  Meanwhile they were content to possess their souls in patience, making use of every legitimate and constitutional means to obtain redress.

Referring to the Declaration of Independence, an American writer says:

Candor admits that a very large number of honorable Loyalists had at this crisis to meet a bitter disappointment.  They had heartily sent a representative to Congress for the purpose of securing a redress of grievances; but that Congress had proved as was claimed, treacherous to its proposed objects, and had led them into a trap and had abused their confidence.³

The Declaration of Independence was a severe blow, not to the Loyalists only, but to the best friends of America in England.  Men like Chatham, Camden, Richmond, Burke, Fox and Cavendish had warmly espoused and nobly vindicated the cause of the colonies.  They had, on the authority of Franklin and others, insisted that Congress earnestly desired to retain British connection at all hazard.  When, therefore, Congress voted to renounce all past professions of such a desire, declaring the mother country their enemy and avowing a final separation, the surprise of Chatham and his friends was intense.  They could not but feel that their confidence had been betrayed and their patriotic efforts frustrated.

There has been a good deal of speculation in the minds of the students of the history of America as to the probability of the continued union of the colonies with Great Britain had Pitt held the helm of state in the troublous times preceding the Revolution.  The question will always be a debatable one.  We may believe, however, that had Pitt been in power, American independence would not have come when it did, nor would it have been eventually brought about by means of a disastrous civil war.

¹Sabine.

²Geo. E. Ellis, D.D., LL.D.

³Dr. Ellis, in Narrative and Critical History of America.