I need to share something I’ve learned in my research about
the American Revolution that absolutely has me stunned. Because my story
focuses on the British occupation of New York, I’ve had to delve deep into the
Loyalist position.
Now understand this…I have always seen myself as a patriot.
I’ve visited Boston and walked the Freedom Trail, I’ve gone to Philadelphia and
put my hand in the crack of the Liberty Bell. I’ve watched 1776 more times than I can count and I’ve gone to Valley Forge,
Monticello and Mount Vernon…some of them more than once. I like Benjamin
Franklin and Jefferson, would probably fight with John Adams and be a little
bit shy of George Washington. If you asked me the woman from history I’d most
like to meet? Hands down, no contest…Abigail Adams. I have so many questions
I’d love to ask her!
Because I so closely identify with the side of the rebellion
here, I have never really understood the Tory side. Those who called themselves
“Loyalists” always seemed blind to me. How could they want to remain with the
oppressor unless they were 1) evil or 2) stupid?
Well, of course, they weren’t the first. With the exception
of a few who advocated for what today we call a “scorched earth” policy (New
York’s own Governor Tryon among the worst of that lot!), most of the British
officers felt they were in the right to punish malcontents who disrupted the
peace. And make no mistake…the rebels had their share of nasty characters.
Tarring and feathering is painful – and often deadly.
And my research is showing me the Loyalists weren’t stupid,
either. Most shared the rebel’s opinions concerning the wrongness of the taxes,
the abandonment of civil rule for martial law, and the quartering of British
soldiers in their homes. That is what has stunned me. Loyalists felt the same way as the patriots did.
So why didn’t they join the rebellion? That had me stumped
for quite a while, but I get it now. The key lies in the phrase “Unnatural
rebellion.” There’s a book by that title that provides a wonderful, balanced
presentation of opinions by Ruma
Chopra and I highly recommend it. She’s not the only one to explain it, but
she’s the one who helped me understand it the most.
To the patriots, separation from the Mother Country was the
only logical step left for them. They’d tried all the legal means and
Parliament and the King refused to acknowledge the depth of their grievances. The
men of the Second Continental Congress understood and were grateful for all the
help England had given the colonies over the years, but the reality was, we
needed to grow and they didn’t understand that. Separation was the only
alternative.
But to the Loyalists, separation was anathema. It wasn’t
legal. It could never be right. Yes, Parliament didn’t understand the needs of
the colonies, but they only needed the right words, the right speaker and they would understand. The British military
forces were the greatest in the world—why would one not want to be a part of
that? Oaths of loyalty had been taken to King and Country – those were not to
be broken.
So even though New York was under martial law starting the
day after the Howe brothers sailed into the harbor, Loyalists flocked to the
city from all over the colonies not because they felt the British were in the
right, but because they felt the Patriots were in the wrong.
It’s really an Erasmus/Martin Luther situation. Those two
were great friends, both of whom chafed under what they saw as corruption and
wrongdoing in the church they served as priests just a century and a half
before the Revolution. Erasmus counseled for change within the system. Martin
Luther felt a more radical approach was needed, finally listing the ninety-five
things that needed addressing and going very public with them.
We know the upshot of that little list. Because Martin
Luther wouldn’t back down, despite his friend’s pleas to stay with in the
church and work with the other priests, he was tossed out and his followers
started a new church.
Of course, this led to others taking that step as well and
the single church now became many. Those who stayed the course needed a name
for their religion to distinguish it from all the others and chose the word
“catholic” – a word that means “universal.” Those who left were “protest-ants”
because they were protesting the wrongs within the church. Hence, they became
the “Protestants.”*
I’m sure there are many more examples throughout history,
but the point is, I’m getting it now. When people are stomped on and their
rights taken away, when they are not paid a living wage and are starving and
hungry, some will go outside the law and rebel and others will work within the
law to change the situation.
I just realized something else. Tomorrow Americans head to
the polls to vote for Governors and state representatives. Some of us also have
law proposals on the ballot that we need to make decisions about. It is our
chance to work within the law to make changes we feel strongly about.
Am I still a patriot? Yes. Breaking with the rulers who
didn’t understand was the right thing to do then. Am I a rebel today? Less so.
I feel my vote counts and am willing to stay within the system to make a
change. Does that make me a Loyalist? I’m beginning to wonder…
Play safe, VOTE,
and thanks for listening :)
Diana
*A simplistic telling of events, but you get my point. I
hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment