French and Indian War Loyalist point of view
"Between the years 1754 and 1763, major powers engaged in a global struggle, the Seven Years War. In North America, this conflict was referred to as the French and Indian War. The conflict between the French and British Empires included indigenous nations.The French and Indian War helped set the stage for the American Revolution by necessitating British taxation of the American colonists to pay for the war costs. For Native American groups who sided with the French, the outcome of the conflict would prove devastating. This collection of documents, images, maps, and artifacts provides various perspectives on the war, incorporating the view from the leadership and from more marginalized groups. By analyzing, exploring, and interpreting these primary sources, students will gain insight into the experience of eighteenth-century warfare, from the point of view of the “winners” and the “losers.” " Show The outbreak of war in 1775 forced many people to choose a side, even if they did not want to. Imagine your neighbors approaching you to demand your support or accusing you of secretly sympathizing with their opponents. There could be serious repercussions for choosing to side with them but trying to stay neutral could be equally dangerous. Imagine making this decision with no idea what the outcome of war or independence would be. This was the reality for many people in the British North American colonies during the Revolutionary era. NeutralityThere were many reasons why someone might try to adopt a neutral stance. Some people were torn between their discontent with British policy and their desire to remain a part of the Empire. They may have protested British policies over the years but still wanted to enjoy the benefits of being British subjects. Neither the Revolutionaries nor Loyalists truly represented their beliefs. Quakers were generally pacifists and rejected the idea of supporting Revolutionaries or Loyalists because of escalating violence between them. They refused to politically or financially support efforts that contributed to violence. Hannah Griffitts, a Quaker, decried the hostilities between fellow Americans, calling Thomas Paine “a snake beneath the grass” for encouraging Americans to turn on one another. Other colonists wished to remain neutral because they wanted no part in a war that could bring death and destruction to their families and homes. They may or may not have felt strongly about the issue of independence but the risk that war brought was too great in their eyes. In other cases, British Americans may not have cared deeply about what the outcome of a war for independence would be. If they lived far away from where the conflict was taking place or didn’t see a benefit to choosing, then they sometimes tried to stay out of the conflict. Pressure and DistrustThe publication of Common Sense and its spread throughout the colonies helped create a larger split between Americans on either side of the independence debate. The positions of both Revolutionaries and Loyalists were hardened over the content of the pamphlet, leaving less room for compromise between them. As the debate over independence grew more heated, Loyalists and Revolutionaries both turned to different forms of persuasion to pressure undecided colonists to choose a side. Broadsides, newspapers, and propaganda prints called for colonists to support or oppose independence. Neighbors sometimes tried to persuade others nearby to swear oaths of allegiance or loyalty. In some cases, they threatened those who refused with severe consequences. Increasing pressure to choose sides meant that some colonists had to make the difficult choice of sticking to their beliefs or choosing the safety that came with joining the side that had more support in their area. Both Revolutionaries and Loyalists often pressured neutral parties to choose a side. This pressure could make those in the middle feel like their safety or that of their families was at risk. They were sometimes compelled to declare their allegiance and fight for one side or the other in the hopes of preventing harm or hardship to their families. Sometimes they experienced harassment, had their property damaged, or were even thrown in jail for refusing to support one side over the other. However, these tactics could also backfire in some cases. Revolutionaries initially coerced Alexander Chesney into joining the Continental Army to prove his family were not Loyalists. He eventually deserted and joined the British army after Revolutionaries destroyed crops on his farm. Would you be willing to fight for a cause you didn’t believe in if it kept your family out of harm’s way? Some colonists were lumped in with Revolutionaries or Loyalists, even if they avoided expressing support for either. Their failure to fully support either side made others suspicious of them. They could be treated as an enemy despite their efforts to stay out of the growing conflict. Revolutionaries and Loyalists both engaged in the confiscation of property from those they suspected of being their enemies, which sometimes included neutral colonists as well. Married women also risked consequences for the choices of their husbands in these situations. The legal idea of coverture required women to give up most of their personal rights and property to their husband following marriage. It was then their husband’s responsibility to care for them and make decisions on their behalf. As a result, married women could lose their homes and possessions because of their husband’s politics. Elizabeth Drinker and her husband Henry were Quakers in Philadelphia who were suspected of being sympathetic to the British for their anti-war religious views despite not siding with Loyalists or Revolutionaries. One day, the Pennsylvania government seized property from their homes, then auctioned it off to fund the Revolutionaries' war effort. Many colonists like Elizabeth discovered that even trying to remain neutral could have consequences. Caught in the MiddleOthers found themselves caught in the middle not because of their religious beliefs or status as married women, but because of their status of freedom, or tentative political and economic positions in relation to European colonial society. These things often impacted their decisions about who to support. These decisions created opportunities for greater freedom, but also came with risks. Choosing the losing side could be disastrous. No one was certain what the future would hold, so everyone had to make the best decision they could with the information they had.
The movement for independence created opportunity and danger alike for people living in British North America. For many, the decision of who if anyone, to support, was far from simple. What was a loyalist during the French and Indian war?Loyalists were most often people who were conservative by nature or in politics, valued order, were fearful of 'mob' rule, felt sentimental ties to the Mother Country, were loyal to the King or concerned that an independent new nation would not be able to defend themselves. Some escaped slaves became Loyalists.
What was the Loyalists point of view?Loyalists wanted to pursue peaceful forms of protest because they believed that violence would give rise to mob rule or tyranny. They also believed that independence would mean the loss of economic benefits derived from membership in the British mercantile system.
What were the loyalist arguments?Loyalists were firmly opposed to independence and wished to remain part of the Empire. They outnumbered Revolutionaries in several areas and supported the crown for a variety of reasons. Some of them had spent years criticizing the Empire's treatment of the colonies, but ultimately disagreed with separation.
What did the loyalist think of freedom and loyalty?They felt that the way to freedom was not through American independence. In “The Price of Loyalty,” there are accounts of a kidnapped servant trying to get back to England and of a slave who wanted to remain with the British.
|