History of the settlement of Upper Canada (Ontario,) with special reference to the Bay Quinté. William Canniff
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.
MOTIVES OF THE LOYALISTS.
Whatever may have been the incentives to rebellion, yielded to by those who revolted, there cannot rest upon the mind of the honest reader of unbiassed history a doubt as to the motives of the loyalists. The home-spun eulogists of the United States revolutionary soldiers have never ceased to dwell upon the principles which fired the breasts of the patriots, and nerved their arms to deeds of daring and successful warfare; all the time observing silence respecting the bravery of those who, from the same walks of life, engaged in the strife as the determined antagonists to rebellion. They have again and again charged upon the “king’s men” that it was because they were servants of the Crown and feeders at the government stall that loyalty was assumed and fought for. But facts, when allowed to stand out uncovered by the cant of liberatists, declare, in words that may not be gainsayed, that there were a vast number who held no appointment under the Crown, yet who, from first to last, were true—naturally true—to their king and country. The great mass were essentially conservatives, called “tories.” They held the opinion that to rebel was not only unnecessary but wrong. They believed that the evils of which the colonists had just reason to complain were not so great as to justify the extreme step taken by the signers of the Declaration of Independence; that any injustice existing was but temporary and would, when properly and calmly represented to the home government, be remedied; that to convulse the colonies in war was an unjustifiably harsh procedure; and, entertaining such a belief, it is submitted that they were noble indeed in standing up for peace—for more moderate measures. Moreover, not unlikely, many were impressed with the view that the disaffected were laboring under an erroneous idea of oppression; that the training incident to pioneer life, the previous wars with the French Canadians, the constant contentions with the Indians, had begotten false views of their rights, and made them too quick to discover supposed wrongs. Candidly impressed with such thoughts, they could not be otherwise than true to the natural instincts of their heart, and refuse to take part, or acquiesce in throwing overboard the government of England, and so become aliens to the flag under which they were born and had lived, and for which they had fought. Not many may cast aside their feelings of nationality; not many can forget the land of their birth; not a large number will bury the associations of a life-time without the most potent causes. And, doubtless, the Anglo-American who faithfully adhered to the old flag possessed all the ardor of a lofty patriotism. But the American writer has forgotten all this. In the broad sunlight of national success he has not discovered the sacred longings of the U. E. Loyalists for the Union Jack. Looking at the events of ’76 by the lurid glare of civil war, his eyes are blinded to the fact that a noble band, possessing equal rights with the rebels, loved England, notwithstanding all her faults, and for that love sacrificed their all of worldly goods. The citizens of the United States would prefer to have it said in history that the U. E. Loyalists, in every instance, voluntarily left their homes during the war, or at its close. The loyalists are thereby, no doubt, made to appear more devotedly attached to the British Crown. But it is right to have it distinctly stated that American writers mostly make themselves guilty of suppressio veri. The latest instance of this is seen in a report to the Hon. Hugh McCullough, Secretary of the Treasury, prepared by E. H. Derby, Commissioner of the Treasury Department, dated January 1st, 1866, who, in remarking upon the British Colonial policy from 1776 down to 1830, takes occasion to say that, “at first there was little fellowship between the United States and the Provincialists, many of whom were descended from the loyalists who followed the British troops from our shores.” The fact is, however, that many of them were driven away. The tories were not loyal without sense; and when the fortune of war had turned against them, they would, in great numbers, have made the best of their changed condition, and have lived to become true citizens of the new-born nation. But this was not to be. The loyalists were to be made feel that they were outcasts. It is the same ignoble and unstatesmanlike course which is now being pursued toward the subdued South. They must needs be made to know they are rebels. It is a shortsighted policy, even as the former was. The former led to the establishment of a nation to their north, which will stand, even after the Union lies in fragments; the latter fosters a feeling of alienation, which will speak upon the first opportunity, in the thunder tones of war.
If a comparison is instituted between the rebels of 1776, and those who were conservators of peace, the contrast is found to be very great. It is charged against the loyalists that all office-holders were tories; but is this more worthy of remark than the fact that many became rebels because they could not obtain office. Nay, the latter is infinitely more heinous in its nature. If we look at the two parties, with respect to education and, it may be added, religion, it is found that the great bulk of the educated and refined, the religious classes, especially the clergy, the leading lawyers, the most prominent medical men, were all loyalists. It was not because they were office-holders, it was because they possessed a moral and elevated mind, educated to a correct standard. Then, again, there was a large class of citizens who loved retirement, and who begged to be allowed to remain neutral, but who were actually compelled to take sides with the rebels or be driven away.
The peaceably inclined, who looked for guidance to their spiritual instructors, generally beheld them, if not actually advocating the interests of the crown, at least setting an example against rebellion, and they were thus strengthened in their feelings of loyalty, or determination to remain neutral. The flame of patriotism was kept aglow in many a heart by the earnest prayer of the gospel minister. Says Sabine: “From what has now been said it is evident that a very considerable proportion of the professional and editorial intelligence and talents of the thirteen colonies was arrayed against the popular movement.” Again: “a large number of the clergy were United Empire Loyalists.” Also, “the giants of the law were nearly all loyalists.” The physicians were mostly tories, but were, as a general thing, not molested. “A few were banished; others became surgeons in the army.”
CHAPTER VI.