Who Were the Loyalists?
Over two hundred years ago the American Revolution shattered the British Empire in North America.
United Empire Loyalist statue and plaque in Hamilton, OntarioNot all the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies opposed Britain. The United Empire Loyalists were those colonists who remained faithful to the Crown and wished to continue living in the New World. Therefore, they left their homes to settle eventually in what remained of British North America.
The Loyalists came from every class and walk of life. Some depended on the Crown for their livelihood and status and had considerable wealth and property. Many were farmers and craftsmen. There were clerks and clergymen, lawyers and labourers, soldiers and slaves, Native Americans, college graduates, and people who could not write their own names. Recent immigrants from Europe also tended to support the Crown.
They had little in common but their opposition to the revolution. Their reasons for becoming Loyalists were as varied as their backgrounds. Some had strong ties with Britain: others had simply supported what turned out to be the losing side. Local incidents, fear of change, self-interest, political principles, emotional bonds – one or any combination of these influenced their decision to remain loyal to the Crown. The common thread that linked these diverse groups was a distrust of too much democracy which they believed resulted in mob rule and an accompanying breakdown of law and order. The Reverend Mather Byles mused, "Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" Loyalists believed that the British connection guaranteed them a more secure and prosperous life than republicanism would.
A Short History of the United Empire Loyalists by Ann Mackenzie M.A. (PDF)
Smashing post Baltzers.
ReplyDeleteI did like this line. The tyranny of democracy.
The common thread that linked these diverse groups was a distrust of too much democracy which they believed resulted in mob rule and an accompanying breakdown of law and order. The Reverend Mather Byles mused, "Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Welcome back, JKB.
ReplyDeleteThe world would have been much less republican today if the US had not fallen into the hands of the revolutionaries and the modern American Wilsonians who followed. It's sympathies have not been with the Old European Order, it's interests have been in making other countries more or less in its own image.
ReplyDeleteThank you, gentlemen!
ReplyDeleteI have not felt like having been gone, though. :-)
I have linked to some reviews of a book by a Dr. John Ferling at my own weblog.
"I have not felt like having been gone, though."
ReplyDeleteIt feels like that to us.
Welcome back.
Robert Rogers, founder of "Roger's Rangers" from whom the modern US Army Rangers claim descent was a loyalist. Ben Franklin's own son was a loyalist, the Crown forces commander in Canada during the War of 1812, George Prevost, was a loyalist from New Jersey. For that matter, Laura Secord was the daughter of loyalist immigrants. However, what always stood out to me was that the majority of Catholics and Jacobites who had been exiled to America were loyalists. This is a lesson some people today still need to learn: if someone is inclined to be a monarchist, my God let them! Don't make enemies out of those inclined to be your friends. The famous Flora McDonald who saved the life of 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' was a very outspoken loyalist.
ReplyDeleteIf I can say one thing in America's defense however it would be this: for all those inclined to blame every republic since on the USA keep in mind that the USA would not exist had it not been for "royal" assistance from France, Spain and Holland. Even as late as the Spanish-American War the German Kaiser Wilhelm II was bemoaning the fact that the monarchies of Europe would not stand in solidarity with Spain against an expanding America. However, other nations always seemed to need the US for something that was in their own interests, oblivious to the fact that they are playing with fire. Well, I guess that's enough of a rant for one post.
The proof is in the pudding.
ReplyDeleteAmerica had certain aspirations, a monarchy sought to deny them, America seized its opportunity, the Loyalists chose servitude, and here we all are.
The proof is in the pudding.
ReplyDeleteAmerica had certain aspirations, a monarchy sought to deny them, America seized its opportunity, the Loyalists chose servitude, and here we all are.
Indeed, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The world is full of clowns who would have us believe that monarchy is servitude whereas "self-government" is freedom. The world is full of clowns who would have us believe the propaganda of the U.S. Declaration of Independence that it was all the King's fault, and that Parliament had nothing to do with it. The world is full of clowns who would have us believe that the world was a place of darkness and tyranny, and then all of a sudden in 1776 the lights were turned on.
The new order has a level of servitude, intrusion, etc. that makes the old order pale in comparison.
Yes, here we all are. Indeed, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!
You make my case. I rest my case.
Leave it to an ersatz gentleman to fall back on archaic language formulations. Did your use of the original phraseology have any other point than to prove that you know it? It appears not; your repeated use of it makes no sense otherwise.
ReplyDeleteLeave it to nostalgic old farts (of whatever age) to pine for what is long gone and forever irretrievable.
Leave it to a deluded narcissist to think he’s made any case at all that deserved these words to be said of it: “I rest my case.”
And leave it to a pompous fool to miss a point.
I said nothing about America bringing light to a dark world. All I said is that you are a servile sore loser. How could you possibly take offense? I asked you to consider the relative positions of your country and America. Objectively, the United States has done something right. The Queen’s dominions are no longer so impressive. The US set its goals and achieved them. The UK had tried to thwart them and it paid the price. That’s it. Simple, no?
Oh, and who are you calling a clown?
Did your use of the original phraseology have any other point than to prove that you know it?
ReplyDeleteIt might have been that I do not like the "shortened" version.
Leave it to nostalgic old farts (of whatever age) to pine for what is long gone and forever irretrievable.
Oh, yes, of course, all who do not embrace the new order are nostalgic old farts. How could I forget? Please do forgive me!
Leave it to a deluded narcissist to think he’s made any case at all that deserved these words to be said of it: “I rest my case.”
I never thought I had made a case. However, you made my case.
I said nothing about America bringing light to a dark world.
And I never said you said so.
All I said is that you are a servile sore loser.
Oh, that's what you said? Well, at least you've said it now. Of course, I bow my head servilely to the victorious new order.
How could you possibly take offense?
What makes you think I took offense?
I asked you to consider the relative positions of your country and America.
You did? What exactly is my country?
Objectively, the United States has done something right.
Objectively, Hitler did something right. After all, he did manage to stay at the helm for several years.
The Queen’s dominions are no longer so impressive.
Which has more to do with two world wars than fighting America.
Oh, and who are you calling a clown?
When one presents oneself visually with the face of a clown, one should not be surprised if one is called one. That said, I called no one in particular a clown. I merely referred to lots of clowns around the world.
"Objectively, Hitler did something right. After all, he did manage to stay at the helm for several years."
ReplyDeleteInteresting comparison from someone believing that the US suffers from too much democracy.
"Which has more to do with two world wars than fighting America."
Ah! You missed my point again -- or, rather, misunderstood it. Let's try it your way: America increased in power as a result of fighting two world wars. It was no mistake or happenstance.
"I bow my head servilely to the victorious new order."
You bow your head to a number of things, I see.
"I merely referred to lots of clowns around the world."
Indeed.
Omitted from last comment:
ReplyDelete"You did?"
Yes. Must I always be explicit?
"What exactly is my country?"
Doesn't matter. Anyway, please notice the side-bar of this site: "The monarchs of Britain." If you are not a subject of the Queen, you might as well be. Whatever nation you make your domicile makes no difference to me.
Interesting comparison from someone believing that the US suffers from too much democracy.
ReplyDeleteIf America did something right objectively since she has managed to grow her power, then certainly Hitler did something right objectively too, since he managed to grow his power and stay for several years at the helm. If it is so that you too must have everything explicit, that does not imply that he did something -- or anything, for that matter -- morally right.
America increased in power as a result of fighting two world wars. It was no mistake or happenstance.
What seems to have been your claim is that the British Empire tried to fight America and paid the price for it. How exactly is this so?
You bow your head to a number of things, I see.
Oh, but you have decided that I am a servile sore loser. Of course, I bow my head servilely to that.
Must I always be explicit?
Well, I left my telepathic capacities behind at one of my many safaris. I believe they were eaten by a hungry lion. :-)
If you are not a subject of the Queen, you might as well be. Whatever nation you make your domicile makes no difference to me.
Suit yourself.
"What seems to have been your claim is that the British Empire tried to fight America and paid the price for it. How exactly is this so?"
ReplyDeleteMy point was that Britain could have avoided the break with its American colonies. It didn't. America went its own way and supplanted Britain -- first, in the area that the US now comprises, then in the Americas, and then the world. America now rules the seas to an extent never done by the British Empire. This outcome was not unintentional but, rather, the natural outcome of America's strategic goals.
Had the break never occurred, the British Empire would almost certainly still exist. The locus (if not the seat) of its power would still likely be in North America, but its character would likely be quite different.
"Suit yourself."
That's my aim.
Interesting counterfactual scenario.
ReplyDeleteWell, thanks for the "interesting" part. As far as my counter-facts go, you can't be referring to the one about the American break with Britain, the one about America's going its own way apart from Britain, the one about America's supplanting the British Empire, the one about the US's sovereignty over its own territory, or the ones about the American dominance of its hemisphere or the world. So, what, exactly could you be referring to? Surely not to everything else in my comment, which (I shouldn't have to tell you) is something called "opinion." I am sure you are familiar with this concept; you excel at the uniformed kind.
ReplyDelete"Uniformed" is clown-speak from "uninformed."
ReplyDeleteThat's "uninformed" as in, "The United Empire Loyalists were those colonists who remained faithful to the Crown and wished to continue living in the New World." Now that's a conclusion backed up by no known fact. How do you know whether they wanted to remain in teh New World or not? Just look at those miserable Canadians pressed hard against the US border shrivering with cold ... and God knows what else. Looks to me as though they would have been glad to go just about anywhere else. Who could blame them?
I thought I'd make this clear for you to avoid unnecessary confusion and wasted comment-posting on your part.
You're welcome.
This is the interesting counterfactual scenario:
ReplyDeleteHad the break never occurred, the British Empire would almost certainly still exist. The locus (if not the seat) of its power would still likely be in North America, but its character would likely be quite different.
That's "uninformed" as in, "The United Empire Loyalists were those colonists who remained faithful to the Crown and wished to continue living in the New World."
ReplyDeleteDo you in the term uninformed also include those incapable of distinguishing between quotes and original statements of a blog author?
Of course not, as I can clearly see that you endorse them. Don't you think it would be sort of clownish to quote someone's words without comment, if you disagreed with the words?
ReplyDeleteOf course you do.
In any event, I reserve the right to make a rhetorical point at your expense, even if you find it unfair -- or even if it IS unfair. Sorry, but that's the way it works with snark.
In what way is this "what if scenario" counterfactual? Now, don't go telling me it's counterfactual because it didn't happen. That would sort of be missing the point of the ol' "what if scenario," thing you know. And that would be a very, very unfair way of trying to score a rhetorical point.
ReplyDeleteIn what way is this "what if scenario" counterfactual?
ReplyDeleteCounterfactual scenario as in counterfactual history. Can it really be that hard?
Don't you think it would be sort of clownish to quote someone's words without comment, if you disagreed with the words?
ReplyDeleteI do quote others if I more or less agree or am sympathetic to their message -- without necessarily adding comments of my own. That does not, however, imply that I take full responsibility for their words or their research.
In any event, I reserve the right to make a rhetorical point at your expense, even if you find it unfair -- or even if it IS unfair. Sorry, but that's the way it works with snark.
You are welcome to try.
"Counterfactual scenario as in counterfactual history."
ReplyDeleteAh. Got it.
"Can it really be that hard?
Yes. Please be more precise with your terms next time. I hadn't heard "what-if scenarios" or "counterfactual history" described as "counterfactual scenarios" before; however, if it's in Wikipedia, it must be so
if it's in Wikipedia, it must be so
ReplyDeleteIf you believe this is one of the not so few cases where Wikipedia is in the wrong, I am sure the Wikipedia community will appreciate your comments in the discussion pages.
I am sure they will appreciate them there at least as much as you've appreciated them here.
ReplyDeleteOh, and in light of my misunderstanding the term "counterfactual scenario," I hereby -- reluctantly, of course -- take back my snark, "you excel at the uni[n]formed kind," and the comment that followed. It is the clownly thing to do.
ReplyDelete