History of the settlement of Upper Canada (Ontario,) with special reference to the Bay Quinté. William Canniff
Читать онлайн книгу.
Eldridge Gerry, Joseph Hewes, George Taylor, Roger Sherman, Button Gurnett, and Robert Morris, all signers of the declaration of independence—all smugglers!
And thus it came about. The Crown was determined to exact taxes, and ignorant of the feelings of the colonists; and the colonists, grown rich by unrestricted trade—by smuggling, entered into a contract, which was only to end in dismemberment of the British Empire. Side issues were raised, cries of oppression shouted, the love of liberty invoked and epithets bandied; but they were only for effect, to inflame the public mind, of which there was much wavering. Of course, there were other things which assisted to ripen rebellion, at least were so represented, that they added to the growing discontent. Colonies, when they have become developed by age, and powerful by local circumstances, will naturally lose the interest which animates the subject at home. It is in the nature of things that the love of country should gradually change from the old home to the new. The inhabitants of the colonies were in many cases but descendants of European nations, who could not be expected to retain the warmest attachment to the parent country. The tide of war had changed the allegiance of many a one. The heterogeneous whole could not be called English, and hence it was more easy to cast aside the noble feeling called patriotism. Then there were jealousies of the Crown officers, and everything undertaken by the home government, having the appearance of change, was promptly suspected as being intended to degrade them. The exclusiveness of the regular army and superciliousness to the provincial troops, during the French war, caused many a sting, and the thought of insult to the provincial officer remained to rankle and fester in the mind of many a military aspirant. The proposal to introduce Episcopal Bishops, to give precedence to the Established Church, had its effect upon many, yet many of the non-conformists were equally loyal.
The contest was originally between New England and Old England. While the Middle and Southern States were for peace, or moderate measures, the north sedulously worked to stir up strife by disseminating specious statements and spreading abroad partisan sentiments. Massachusetts took the lead. Founded by Puritans, (who, themselves were the most intolerant bigots and became the greatest persecutors America has seen,) these States possessed the proper elements with which to kindle discontent.
Thus we have learned that independence was not the primary object of revolt, and we have seen that the leaders in rebellion were principally New Englanders, and were actuated mainly by mercenary motives, unbounded selfishness and bigotry.
CHAPTER V.
Contents—The signers of the Declaration of Independence—Their nativity—Injustice of American writers for 80 years—Cast back mis-statements—The whigs had been U. E. Loyalists—Hancock—Office-seekers—Malcontents stir up strife—What the fathers of the Republic fought for—Rebel committees—Black mail—Otis, John Adams, Warren, Washington, Henry, Franklin—What caused them to rebel—What the American revolutionary heroes actually were—Cruelty, during and after the war—No freedom—The political mistake of the rebels in alienating the loyalists—The consequence—Motives of the loyalists—False charges—Conscientious conservatives—Rebellion not warranted—Attachment to the old flag—Loyalists driven away—Suppressio veri—Want of noble spirit towards the South—Effects—Comparison between loyalists and rebels—Education—Religion—The neutral—The professions.
Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence nine were born in Massachusetts, seven in Virginia, six in Maryland, five in Connecticut, four in New Jersey, four in Pennsylvania, four in South Carolina, three in New York, three in Delaware, two in Rhode Island, one in Maine, three in Ireland, two in England, two in Scotland, and one in Wales. Of these twenty-one were attornies; ten merchants; four physicians; three farmers; one clergyman; one printer; and ten men of fortune.
THE MOTIVES.
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