Читать книгу History of the settlement of Upper Canada (Ontario,) with special reference to the Bay Quinté - William Canniff - Страница 26

Table of Contents

Contents—​American Writers—​Sabine—​Loyalists had no time to waste—​Independence not sought at first—​Adams—​Franklin—​Jay—​Jefferson—​Washington—​Madison—​The British Government—​Ingratitude of the Colonists—​Taxation—​Smugglers—​Crown Officers—​Persistence—​Superciliousness—​Contest between Old England and New England.

It is most refreshing to one who has been accustomed to see American school books, and even religious American tracts thickly strewn with the most fulsome self-praise, and wordy accounts of British tyranny, and of American purity and valor; to read the speeches, and listen to 4th of July orators, who, with distorted history and hifalutin panegyrics, have not ceased to wrap their country in a blazing sheet of glory. After suffering all this, ad nauseam, it is most agreeable to read the writings of one American author upon the subject of their Independence, who can do some justice to the Loyalists. Reference is made to Lorenzo Sabine, the author of “Royalists of the American Revolution.” Considering the prejudices which exist throughout the United States against every thing British, and the overweening vanity of the people in respect to the success which crowned their efforts to dismember the British Empire; it is a matter for grateful recognition that a native of New England should take up his pen to write redeeming words on behalf of the Loyalists whom they had been taught to stigmatize, to be read by his fellow countrymen. Living upon the borders, beyond which he could see the settled refugees working out their destiny, under adverse circumstances, and laying the foundation of a nation, he took up his pen, while the Upper Canadians were yet struggling with the forest, and without time to gather up the records of their wrongs, their losses, their persecutions, and more than all, the malicious charges against them; and hurl them back at their traducers. On behalf of those who will accept the writer as a representative of the United Empire Loyalists, he thanks Lorenzo Sabine, for what he has said. He has said nothing but the substantial truth in our favor, and in saying that, he has said very much. In his prefatory remarks, after referring to their deficiency of knowledge of the “Tories” he says, “The reason is obvious. Men who, like the Loyalists, separate themselves from their friends and kindred, who are driven from their homes, who surrender the hopes and expectations of life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and exiles—​such men leave few memorials behind them. Their papers are scattered and lost, and their very names pass from human recollections.”

Before considering the question, whether the American colonies were justified in taking an extreme step; it is most necessary to state that, at the first there were but an insignificant number of the colonists who held the belief that armed rebellion was demanded. Even among those who, with no mild-toned language denounced the mother country for enacting laws oppressive to the commerce and industry of the Americans, no one was found to advocate separation; on the contrary to use the words of Sabine “The denial that independence was the final object, was constant and general.” To obtain concessions and preserve the connection with England, was affirmed everywhere; and John Adams, years after the peace, went further than this, for he said ‘There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.’ Again, Franklin’s testimony, a few days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had “more than once travelled from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking, and conversing with them freely, and never had heard in any conversation from any person drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.” Mr. Jay is quite as explicit. “During the course of my life and until the second petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of any class, of any description, express a wish for the independence of the colonies. It has always, and still is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.” Says Mr. Jefferson, “What, eastward of New York, might have been the dispositions toward England before the commencement of hostilities, I know not, but before that I never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great Britain, and after that, its possibility was contemplated with affliction by all.” Washington, in 1774, sustained these declarations, and, in the “Fairfax County Resolves” it was complained, that “malevolent falsehoods” were propagated by the ministry to prejudice the mind of the king; particularly that there is an intention in the American colonies to set up for independent States; and Washington expressed a wish that the “dispute might be left to posterity to determine.” Mr. Madison was not in public life until May, 1776, but he says, “It has always been my impression, that a re-establishment of the colonial relations to the parent country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the real object of every class of the people, till the despair of obtaining it.”

The testimony of these Fathers of the Republic, cannot be impeached; and, we must, therefore, seek for the cause of the rebellion in some other place. We have seen how the British colonies were planted. In connection with them, two leading influences may be discovered constantly at work, one of a personal nature; the other referring to the State. Individuals would not sever the ties of home-ship and brave the wide ocean, to expose themselves to the varied dangers of the wilderness, did they not have good reason to expect due returns. The Government would not afford ships and means to send her sons to distant shores, unless the colony would become serviceable to the parent State. The British Government had enabled many a hardy son to lay the foundation for substantial wealth. More than all, the colonies of America had been assisted to put under their feet their French rival. For their benefit the Crown expected, and undertook to enforce some tribute. But the colonists would not recognize the right of the Crown to tax them for their labor. For all the British Government had done for the colonies, for all the money spent, she required that the colonists should be taxed. Laws were enacted, and officers and revenue collectors appointed to enforce the laws. It was required that these colonies should not trade, without certain restrictions, with foreign nations; but the merchants of Massachusetts, having tasted the sweets of unrestricted trade, were unwilling to pay revenue to the Crown, although trading under the protection of the British flag. And so it came that when royal collectors of customs were sent out; when men of war coasted the shores of Massachusetts to prevent smuggling, by Hancock and others, there was no disposition to submit to Imperial taxation. For years the law relating to revenue had been a dead letter almost, the smugglers having used hush money. But at last Government determined to put down illicit trade. It is true the colonies did not object without a special plea, which was “no taxation without representation.” But the real points at issue were, whether contraband commerce should continue and increase, or the Crown receive the dues demanded by law. “Nine-tenths probably, of all the tea, wine, fruit, sugar, and molasses, consumed in the colonies were smuggled. To put this down was the determined purpose of the ministry. The commanders of the ships of war on the American station were accordingly commissioned as officers of the customs; and, to quicken their zeal, they were to share in the proceeds of the confiscations; the courts to decide upon the lawfulness of seizures, were to be composed of a single judge, without a jury, whose emoluments were to be derived from his own condemnations; the Governors of the colonies and the military officers were to be rewarded for their activity by swearing also, either in the property condemned, or in the penalties annexed to the interdicted trade.” And was not the Crown correct in enforcing laws intended for the public weal? Had hostile fleets approached Boston harbour to invade, instead of smuggling crafts, freighted with luxuries, would not the colonist have called loudly for Imperial help to protect? But if the Government had the best of rights to enforce the laws, it certainly displayed much want of judgment in the mode adopted to carry out its demands. The foregoing, from Sabine, recalls to us at once the cause why resistance was strenuously made. The mode of paying their Crown officers was well calculated to kindle feelings of the most determined opposition on the part of the illicit traders, such as John Hancock, John Langdon, Samuel Adams, William Whipple, George Clymer, Stephen Hopkins, Francis Louis, Philip Livingston, Eldridge Gerry, Joseph Hewes, George Taylor, Roger Sherman, Button Gurnett, and Robert Morris, all signers of the declaration of independence—​all smugglers!

And thus it came about. The Crown was determined to exact taxes, and ignorant of the feelings of the colonists; and the colonists, grown rich by unrestricted trade—​by smuggling, entered into a contract, which was only to end in dismemberment of the British Empire. Side issues were raised, cries of oppression shouted, the love of liberty invoked and epithets bandied; but they were only for effect, to inflame the public mind, of which there was much wavering. Of course, there were other things which assisted to ripen rebellion, at least were so represented, that they added to the growing discontent. Colonies, when they have become developed by age, and powerful by local circumstances, will naturally lose the interest which animates the subject at home. It is in the nature of things that the love of country should gradually change from the old home to the new. The inhabitants of the colonies were in many cases but descendants of European nations, who could not be expected to retain the warmest attachment to the parent country. The tide of war had changed the allegiance of many a one. The heterogeneous whole could not be called English, and hence it was more easy to cast aside the noble feeling called patriotism. Then there were jealousies of the Crown officers, and everything undertaken by the home government, having the appearance of change, was promptly suspected as being intended to degrade them. The exclusiveness of the regular army and superciliousness to the provincial troops, during the French war, caused many a sting, and the thought of insult to the provincial officer remained to rankle and fester in the mind of many a military aspirant. The proposal to introduce Episcopal Bishops, to give precedence to the Established Church, had its effect upon many, yet many of the non-conformists were equally loyal.

The contest was originally between New England and Old England. While the Middle and Southern States were for peace, or moderate measures, the north sedulously worked to stir up strife by disseminating specious statements and spreading abroad partisan sentiments. Massachusetts took the lead. Founded by Puritans, (who, themselves were the most intolerant bigots and became the greatest persecutors America has seen,) these States possessed the proper elements with which to kindle discontent.

Thus we have learned that independence was not the primary object of revolt, and we have seen that the leaders in rebellion were principally New Englanders, and were actuated mainly by mercenary motives, unbounded selfishness and bigotry.