John Adams declared that they deserved extermination, and "strenuously recommended" the Disunion officials "to fine, imprison and hang all inimical to the cause, without fear or affection." And, in order, no doubt, to stimulate proper zeal for that cause," he added: "I would have hanged my own brother if he had took a part with our enemy in this contest."7

66

66

66

Certainly this is revolting to all sentiments of humanity. Perhaps even more so is the fact that the New England clergy, whose sacred office was to preach the gospel of peace and good-will to man, often, instead, preached the gospel of hate and murder. One of the worst examples of this impious perversion of a holy mission is that afforded by Nathaniel Whitaker, appropriately a minister of Salem, the seat of the persecution of the witches," and whose words I have before quoted. This individual, whom Professor Tyler styles an able and good man," in a sermon preached on the eve of the conclusion of peace, when one in whose breast was left unextinguished a spark of human feeling would have looked forward to the dissemination of sentiments of amity and the forgiveness of enemies; at this time, when the Loyalists were being harried and hunted by the dogs of malice and murder, this minister of the Prince of Peace, doing the work of the Father of Evil, exhorted his flock to curse the "Tories" with a "heavy curse." They were, he declared, "guilty of the sin of Meroz." "It is the command of God that, in cursing, we curse them."

66

After the restoration of peace, when, in accordance with the practice of civilized nations, it might have been expected that the several States would have passed acts of indemnity and oblivion-for even during the bloody Stuart régime liberal acts of this character were passeda contrary policy prevailed. Loyalty was a crime for which there was no pardon. Acts of attainder and outlawry were heaped upon the statute-books. In Pennsylvania alone four hundred and ninety Loyalists were attainted for high treason, over four hundred of whom were expatriated. In Massachusetts three hundred and

ten were banished and their property confiscated. And who were they?" asks Professor Tyler: "To anyone at all familiar with the history of colonial New England, that list of men, denounced to exile and loss of property on account of their opinions, will read almost like the beadroll of the oldest and noblest families concerned in the founding and upbuilding of New England civilization."*

The other States followed these cruel examples, and in consequence of these decrees of outlawry, together with some voluntary expatriation, the new States suffered the loss of some one hundred thousand citizens native to the soil; men of worth, culture, industry and humanity. But that which was the Republic's loss was the Empire's gain. The British ministers insisted on embodying in the treaty of peace with the triumphant newly-made sovereign States a provision obliging them to refrain from any further persecution of the Loyalists. Had this obligation been regarded, a large number of them would have remained in or returned to their native provinces, becoming, in due course, citizens of the new Republic. But it was not regarded; the persecutions and confiscations were renewed in all the States, in the face of this provision in the treaty; and because of this bad faith, Canada and other British territory in the Western hemisphere received an accession of at least sixty thousand souls, of whom Lord Bury writes: "It may safely be said that no portion of the British possessions ever received so noble an acquisition." These men and their descendants, in later years, became the bulwark of the colonies against internal dissensions and foreign foes. All this would have been lost to the Empire had the stipulation of the ministry been carried out in good faith by the new States.

The banishment of the Loyalists by no means ended the persecutions. Necessarily a large number remained in their native land, many of them having been deprived of all means to leave. As soon as the evacuation of the

*Literary History, Vol. I., pp. 302, 303.

†Bury's Exodus of the Western Nations.

British troops had been completed, the whippings, tarand-featherings, and dragging through horse-ponds were renewed with redoubled fury. Twenty-four Loyalists, it is said, were hanged at Charleston before the sails of the British troopships were low on the horizon.*

"The axe was not among the instruments of its accomplishment," exultantly declared Daniel Webster of the American Revolution. It was not; the halter was more convenient and quite as effective.

These post-bellum proscriptive acts, with their accompanying private acts of malice and revenge, aroused the indignation of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the latter denouncing them as an instance of unnecessary rigor and unmanly revenge without a parallel except in the annals of religious bigotry and blindness."+

66

But, asserts Mr. Roosevelt, with an airy confidence that seems quite convincing: "That the Loyalists of 1776 were wrong is beyond question; there is no doubt, not only that the patriots were right, but also that they were as a whole superior to the Tories."

Which, of course, disposes of the whole matter.

Perhaps enough has been written to cast a doubt on the assertion of Mr. Bancroft that benign tranquillity reigned in America during the progress of the Revolution. That historian fortifies his allegation by the simple means of avoiding all reference to any act of the Disunionists disparaging to their honesty, good faith and humanity. Although his own library contained abundant evidence of the facts, he avoids all reference to the animosities of the officers of the Revolutionary army, the desertions and insubordination of the men; the plunderings of friend and foe; the prevalent corruption; the readiness of the "patriots" to submit to the enemy whenever their party suffered defeat; their cruel persecution of their unfortunate fellow-colonists-of all this he knows nothing.

*See Charleston Year Book, p. 416.

†John Jay to Alexander Hamilton: Hamilton's History of the United States, Vol. III., p. 10.

Gouverneur Morris, p. 29.

The people who, to Washington, were lacking in public spirit, were impatient of control, were idle, dissipated and extravagant, insatiable in their thirst for riches, quarrelsome and intriguants; in whom virtue and patriotism were almost extinct; whose corruption, greed and dishonesty caused the "virtuous few" to despair; who were prone to desert their chosen cause at every check it received-these men, Mr. Bancroft tells us, were "pious and contented, laborious, frugal," whose rule for the government of conduct was the eternal law of duty," whose "vigor of will was never paralyzed by doubt." "The patriotism of the army," Mr. Bancroft assures us, was so deep and universal that it gave no heed to doubts and altercations." At least, if there were any, they were confined to General Arnold and a few New Yorkers." Arnold, as is proper to the Judas of the Revolutionary Myth, of course, was quarrelsome and insubordinate.'

66

66

66

Without any evidence but that afforded by Mr. Bancroft's History, we would suppose that the Loyalist party consisted of a few dozen Government officials, together with about the same number of ruffianly marauders. All we are told of outrages committed upon Loyalists is a distorted account of the attacks upon the venerable councillors of Massachusetts, which, as related by Mr. Bancroft, appear to have taken the form of a mild admonition. An organized attack by the mob upon a Government vessel, during which a British officer was shot and dangerously wounded-an attack made under the express direction of Disunion leaders-is termed by Mr. Bancroft a "scuffle." In his dealings with mob outrages upon Loyalists, Mr. Bancroft surpasses himself, difficult as that may seem. The only instance of tar-and-feathering mentioned in his History is one of an honest countryman," perpetrated by British officers for the offence of buying a firelock from a soldier!*

66

The encomium passed upon Daniel Defoe cannot fittingly be applied to Mr. Bancroft. Certainly he does not lie like the truth."

66

*IIistory of the United States, Vol. IV., p.

490.

CHAPTER VIII.

LOYALTY AND PSEUDO-LOYALTY.

WE are asked to believe that the Revolutionary chiefs and their followers, as well as the Loyalists, until forced by the acts of the British ministry to renounce their cherished dependence upon the mother country, nursed feelings of the staunchest loyalty to the Empire, and were wedded to the colonial relation. We are expected to believe that there was no such thing as a Disunionist in the whole of North America until such were manufactured by Messrs. Bute, Grenville and Townshend.

66

Though the facts in this regard have been confused by obscure references to "wavering opinions" and growing convictions," supposed to have arisen in the minds of the colonists, there is no difficulty in assigning his proper part to each of the prominent actors on the Revolutionary stage. It is true there were a few, such as James Wilson, afterwards recognized as a thorough Disunionist, who, even as late as the summer of 1776, opposed a declaration of independence. But for such reasons alone such men should not be classed with those who honestly desired to maintain the British connection. All that these pseudo-Loyalists desired was that their colleagues should continue the shallow pretence of allegiance to the King with which they had begun their war against his authority, and which they had so long hypocritically maintained. They did not wish to halt on the road to independence, but only to hasten slowly, believing that policy to be the most effective means of reaching their goal. Besides, this profession of loyalty was "the golden leaf" that "concealed the treason," and might