Monday, August 26, 2013

Loyalists in the American Revolution

In retrospect it is easy for us as present day Americans to say that it was only "common sense" (pun intended) to fight for a cause as noble and worthwhile as American independence. However, as discussed in class today, there actually was a lot of justification for remaining loyal to the British government for a large percentage of the population. Hopefully through this post, some of the reasons discussed today as well as some new ones can give you a better understanding of why many people were on the fence about independence, especially early on.

First of all, throughout their entire lives many of these people had considered themselves loyal members of the British empire, even if they were thousands of miles away. It is important to remember that while the colonists often felt neglected and mistreated, they still considered this argument a "family affair," which represents the tight-knitted nature of the colonies and the English. It is difficult to ignore years and years of history.

Second, independence meant uncertainty, and many people were perfectly content with their standing in life and had no reason to rock the boat. The educated and wealthy found this especially true, and some feared that the republican government described by Thomas Paine would lead to a "leveling" of society and ultimately a complete loss of order. In the aristocratic cities of New York and Charleston, there was a lot of support for the crown. Even for those who did not fall in this category, it was unclear what life would be like in an independent America. How would they know that things would be better?

It is also important to note that some colonists knew better than to bite the hand that fed them. It was not a surprise that king's officers and beneficiaries of the crown remained loyal to the mother country. Areas with many members of the Anglican church, with the exception of Virginia, also sided with the British. The Anglican church was fundamentally a British religion, and most of their support base as well as church members were back home in England. This logically led to their support of the British.

Finally, it was fair to say that several important barriers stood in the way of an American victory. First and foremost, England had far more resources to fight such a war. They had an enormous professional army of 50,000 soldiers and the resources to pay foreign soldiers. They were far wealthier and had a far stronger navy than their American counterparts. The Americans themselves had proved to be disorganized and lacking the central unity that was thought necessary to win the war. They also had a far smaller population compared to the British (2.5 million to 7.5 million respectively). With these statistics in mind, young America seemed to stand little chance against the much militarily and monetarily stronger England.

Now that you know some of the reasons that many colonists remained loyal to the crown, perhaps you can see why not everyone flocked to the patriotic cries of "Give me liberty or give me death!" Would you have taken the chance on independence, or would you have been a Loyalist yourself?

6 comments:

  1. Interesting post, Rebecca. I think the question of whether I would have been a Loyalist myself would have depended on a few factors, the most important of which being my birthplace. I feel that those who were born in the New World would have felt a larger degree of separation from their English "family." It is hard to feel a strong connection to a place you've never been and to people you've never met. I think I probably would have been a rebel, although I would have had a bit of fear as to what would happen to me if England won the war.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with what you have to say, Rebecca.Since most people do not know the details of the revolution and the circumstances at the time, it is very easy to believe that the only logical choice was to fight for independence. Over the past few days we've learned that the colonies were in a very poor position to fight England, and the British had much better resources, giving them a distinct advantage. Because of this, it's understandable why some colonies would be reluctant to wage war against England. However, I think that I would have taken the chance for independence just because of the way England was treating the colonies. As the book put it, the British were essentially using the colonies as cows and milking them for their resources so they could increase their profit, which was clearly unfair. This combined with the fact that England was wrongfully taxing the colonists without their consent would have been enough reason for me to fight for independence. Nevertheless, all the points in your post are quite valid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although I am an incredibly patriotic person now I feel that if I was living during this time period my point of view would be different. Though it seems rather odd that some people would not want full independence it is important to look at other examples. For instance Australia and Canada are not completely independent nations. Though they exert power as if they were they actually still are part of Great Britain as common wealth realms. Though they could have broken all ties with their mother nation they decided to keep themselves at least relative in some way so that many of their trading policies could continue. In recent poles both Australia and Canada have been ranked very high in Human Development and have thrived as countries. This brings up the idea is it truly a bad thing to be connected with the mother country. This is why I feel if I were living in the colonies during this time period I would support the idea that the colonies should still be part of England but they would be more of a economical and mercantile identity and unable to exert political authority. So therefore I feel that being a loyalist like Rebecca said is not to far fetch of an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Rebecca Andrews
    This post is really detailed and thorough; I like how you merged facts with your opinions. Personally, I think that I would have been a Loyalist, but this is probably due to my view of events as a spectator; I would never really know what it was like to be a colonist at this time. From what I have gathered, however, the Mother Country, England, was trying to do its best to secure prosperity for its colonies. By doing so, perhaps their view fell a little off target and stopped treating the colonists as equals. Another factor to my decision concerns my social status at the time. Am I a middle-class merchant or wealthy aristocrat? Many of the Loyalists at this time are, in fact, wealthy and upstanding; if this is the case I would not mind the small duties that are put on goods as long as I know I am in good hands.

    ReplyDelete