Читать книгу History of the settlement of Upper Canada (Ontario,) with special reference to the Bay Quinté - William Canniff - Страница 28

But let us more carefully consider the motives in connection with the rebellion of ’76. So assiduously have our fathers, the U. E. Loyalists, been branded by most American writers as altogether base, that it becomes us to cast back the mis-statements—​to tear away the specious covering of the American revolutionary heroes, and throw the sunlight of truth upon their character, and dispel the false, foul stigma, which the utterances of eighty years have essayed to fasten upon the noble band of Loyalists.

Up to 1776, the whigs as well as the tories were United Empire Loyalists; and it was only when the king’s forces required taxes; when the colonists were requested no longer to smuggle; when they could not dispossess the tories of the power and emoluments of office—​it was only then that the Declaration of Independence was signed by those more particularly interested. John Hancock, whose name stands first upon the document, in such bold characters, had been a successful smuggler, whereby he had acquired his millions, and no wonder he staked his thousands on the issue. Evidence is not wanting to show that many of the leaders of the rebellion, had they been holders of office, would have been as true to the British Crown as were those whom they envied. Every man who took part on the rebel side has been written a hero; but it is asking too much to request us to believe that all the holders of office were base, and lost to the feelings of natural independence and patriotism; more especially when a large proportion of them were, admittedly, educated and religious men; while, on the contrary, the rebels alone were actuated by patriotism and the nobler feelings of manhood. Apart from the merits or demerits of their cause, it must be admitted that the circumstances of the times force upon us the thought that a comparatively few needy office-seekers, or lookers-after other favors from the Crown, not being able to obtain the loaves and fishes, began to stir up strife. A few, possessed of sufficient education, by the aid of the wealthy contraband traders, were enabled, by popular sensational speeches and inflammatory pamphlets, to arouse the feelings of the uneducated; and, finally, to create such a current of political hatred to the Crown that it could not be stayed, and which swept away the ties that naturally attached them to Great Britain.

We may easily imagine the surprise which many experienced in after days, when the war had ended and their independence was acknowledged, to find themselves heroes, and their names commemorated as fathers of their country; whereas they had fought only for money or plunder, or smuggled goods, or because they had not office. In not a few cases it is such whose names have served for the high-sounding fourth of July orators; for the buncombe speechifier and the flippant editor, to base their eulogistic memoriams. Undoubtedly there are a few entitled to the place they occupy in the temple of fame; but the vast majority seem to have been actuated by mercenary motives. We have authenticated cases where prominent individuals took sides with the rebels because they were disappointed in obtaining office; and innumerable instances where wealthy persons were arrested, ostensibly on suspicion, and compelled to pay large fines, and then set at liberty. No feudal tyrant of Europe in the olden times enforced black mail from the traveller with less compunction than rebel “committees” exacted money from wealthy individuals who desired simply to remain neutral.

It has been said that Otis, a name revered by the Americans, actually avowed that he “would set Massachusetts in a flame, though he should perish in the fire.” For what? Not because he wanted liberty, but because his father was not appointed to a vacant judgeship! It is alleged that John Adams was at a loss which side to take, and finally became a rebel because he was refused a commission in the peace! It is said that Joseph Warren was a broken-down man, and sought, amid the turmoil of civic strife, to better his condition. And the immortal Washington, it is related, and has never been successfully contradicted, was soured against the mother county because he was not retained in the British army in reward for his services in the French war. Again, Richard Henry was disappointed in not receiving the office of stamp distributor, which he solicited. Franklin was vexed because of opposition to his great land projects and plans of settlement on the Ohio. Indeed it is averred that mostly all the prominent whigs who sided with the rebels were young men, with nothing to lose and everything to gain by political changes and civil war. Thus it will be seen that the so-called American revolutionary heroes have not altogether clean hands, however much they may have been washed by their descendants. The clothing placed upon them may conceal the dirt and dross and blood, but they are indelibly there.

It is not alone the motives which constituted the mainsprings of the rebels’ action that we place in the balance, but their conduct towards those who differed from them. Individual instances of cruelty we shall have occasion to introduce; but it may here be said that it was the tories who acted as the conservators of peace against a mobocracy, and consequently were made to suffer great afflictions. It was because of this they were forced away to live and die as aliens to the land of their birth. The tories were Americans as well as the whigs; and when at last Great Britain ceased to try to coerce the colonies, and their independence was secured, then a nobler spirit should have obtained among the conquerors, and no one, because he had conscientiously been a conservative, should have been treated with opprobrium. It always becomes the victorious to be generous; and we, with all respect to many American friends, submit that, had patriotism alone actuated the revolutionary party, the American loyalists would have been invited to join with the whigs in erecting a mighty nation. Had freedom, indeed, been the watchword then, as it has flauntingly been since, it would have been conceded that the tory had a right to his opinion as well as the whig to his. Do the Americans descant upon the wisdom and far-seeing policy of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and framed the constitution of the Union? Monroe, we doubt not, had a different opinion when he begot the doctrine “America for the Americans.” Had the U. E. Loyalists been treated honorably; had they been allowed but their rights; had they not been driven away; then the name British American would forever have passed away; and instead of a belt of British provinces on their north, to constitute a ceaseless cause of misunderstanding with England, the star-spangled banner would, doubtless, long ago, have peacefully floated over all our land. Looking at the subject from this (an American) stand-point, we see that a shortsighted policy—​a vindictive feeling, a covetous desire for the property of the tories—​controlled the movements of the hour; and when the terms of peace were signed the birthright of the American tory was signed away, and he became forever an alien. But, as we shall see, he, in consequence, became the founder of a Province which, like a rock, has resisted, and ever will resist, the northward extension of the United States.