Updates and Additions

George Washington's slave - Henry?

Neutralists treated as Loyalists

Tory vs. Loyalist

Violence against Loyalists and the stifling effect on numbers

Black loyalists in Virginia served in the military, but in New York were treated as slave labor

British government saw freedom as a sufficient prize to slaves and offered no monetary reward for service rendered during the war

Occasional executions, tortures, tarring and feathering, family harassment, destruction of private property, etc

Rough Notes 12/3/13

Who

Loyalism is not a literal descriptor or identifiable term for people on the losing side of the Revolution.

Loyalists were supporters of Britain living in colonial America in the 1760s and 1770s.

Loyalism can be considered active or passive based on the individual’s actions.

Some major groups that provided significant Loyalists were the royal officers, merchants, immigrants, and the Anglican Church leadership.

Free blacks, slaves, and Indians were also Loyalists.

Loyalists made up a minority of all economic classes. There were farmers, merchants, etc.

No more than 20%, or about 160,000 to 384,000, of the colonial population was active Loyalists. 

Why

Loyalists supported because their position, livelihood, or aspirations depended on loyalty or supported out of simple concern for loyalty or law

-          Government officials, merchants (Norfolk, NYC, etc), clergy

-          Middle class, regulars, etc

-          Hamilton and Jay (patriot aristocrats, magistrates, govt officials) seen as oppressive tyrannical land owners who would not give land reform. Prompted by 1766 itinerant riots

-          Ethnicity (Scots)

Slaves supported for freedom and Native Americans for protection

Frustration with British policy, but avoiding full rebellion

In the 1760’s Loyalists who supported the rule of law, believed there was a limit to acceptable protests, or disagreed with the colonial mob protests were common. 

When

In the 1760’s Loyalists who supported the rule of law, believed there was a limit to acceptable protests, or disagreed with the colonial mob protests were common.

Later in the early 1770’s moderate colonists, who would later be named “loyalist” by their patriot peers, were important in negotiations between the colonies and parliament. Colonists such as Joseph Galloway and John Dickinson hoped to achieve peace between the two sides in order to avoid war.

After the conflict escalated, some colonists became more aggressive in their loyalty to the Crown and stressed absolute loyalty.

Post-war, loyalists were dispersed all over the world –some went to India, Canada, the Caribbean, Australia, other British colonies. More stayed in America than left. Loyalism became a badge of honor for those who went across the world.

Post-war, loyalists who stayed were disadvantaged politically, legally, and socially. This was found in Pennsylvania and among Native American populations. Loyalism became a badge of shame for those who stayed.

Where

Colonists tended to live near the coast, with the exception of the backcountry Scots in NC or debtor farmers in NY.

Strong influence in the Carolinas and Georgia. Regional influence particular in the South, with the exception of NY. Little influence in New England. British overestimated loyalist sympathies in the South.

People are more likely to be loyalists where there is a strong British presence, but extended interaction with the British (pillaging, British not utilizing loyalist potential) made them less likely to support the British cause. 

Black loyalists who had won their freedom often became second-class citizens. 

Notes from the article “Loyalism” by Edward Larkin

This article provides an overall view in regards to this topic. It intends to go beyond the traditional perspective that separates loyalists and patriots in two different and opposite groups in the early American society.

It offers the concept of loyalists that has been highly demonized by the scholars, as a bunch of people who considered themselves American who preferred the colonies to remain apart rather than become a separate country (p, 298). They admired the British Empire, its culture and its legacy that were seen as example to follow. Those feelings were also shared by other patriots. However, they separated from one to another by the fact that Loyalists disagreed with independency.

It was also thought that most of loyalists returned to England once the war started and the British were defeated by American.  In fact, the most of loyalists remained in America and integrated themselves in the new America that was being consolidated.

Since those people who believed in remain loyal to the British empire were also part of the new-born America, the society aspect in the discussion was quite remarkable. For loyalists to have to decide between both parties was not an easy task.  The tendency is to believe that most loyalists were wealthy people, but most of them were common people who felt some admiration from the British Empire; therefore, for them to have to make their minds and stand for what was considered right, directly affected their society relationship among relatives, neighbors, and friends. In one of the novels used as a reference, the author described this phenomenon, the revolution itself, “as killing his father or killing his brother” So, with the metaphor the author could illustrate how those common people struggled with the ideas and beliefs that were not any issue before and the current society they were living at that particular moment.

So in terms of society, the author stands by the idea that the revolution divided and broke a common and peaceful community.

Finally, the slavery and the loyalism were also considered.   The novel by Boston King was presented as a reference, a slave man who saw becoming a loyalist as an opportunity to seek their own individual independence without any political or society interest, his main goal was to become free and loyalism was the perfect chance for him.

As a conclusion, the author intends to provoke a discussion from the readers and different scholars, inviting them to think about all the different perspectives exposed through the reading.