[98] Stone's Life of Joseph Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution, Vol. II., Chap. i.
[99] Life of Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution.
[100] Brant himself was educated at Philadelphia, married and lived quietly on his land in the Mohawk Valley, entertained the missionaries, and assisted in translating portions of the New Testament; but when the revolution commenced he was not allowed to live in peace unless he joined the revolutionary party. He determined to maintain, as he said, the covenant faith of his forefathers to the King of England, and entered upon the "warpath," in which he became so distinguished a hero; in the course of which he perpetrated many deeds of cruelty, but also, as his biographer records, performed many acts of humanity, kindness, and generosity.
[101] Stone's Brant and the Border Wars of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Introduction, pp. 13, 14, 15.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Situation and Treatment of the Loyalists During the War.
The condition of the United Empire Loyalists for several months before, as well as after, the Declaration of Independence, was humiliating to freemen and perilous in the extreme; and that condition became still more pitiable after the alliance of the revolutionists with the French—the hereditary enemies of both England and the colonies. From the beginning the Loyalists were deprived of the freedom of the press, freedom of assemblage, and under an espionage universal, sleepless, malignant—subjecting the Loyalists to every species of insult, to arrest and imprisonment at any moment, and to the seizure and confiscation of their property.
Before the Declaration of Independence, both parties were confessedly British subjects, professing allegiance to the same sovereign and constitution of government, both professing and avowing their adherence to the rights of British subjects; but differing from each other as to the extent of those rights in contradistinction to the constitutional rights of the Crown and those of the people—as in the case of party discussions of all constitutional questions, whether in the colonies or mother country for centuries past. Both parties had their advocates in the British Parliament; and while the prerogative advocates supported the corrupt Ministry of the day—or the King's party, as it was called—the Opposition in Parliament supported the petitions and remonstrances of those colonists who claimed a more popular colonial government; but all the advocates of the constitutional rights of the colonists, in both Houses of Parliament, disclaimed, on the part of those whom they represented, the least idea of independence or separation from England. The Declaration of Independence essentially changed the relations of parties, both in Great Britain and America. The party of independence—getting, after months of manipulation by its leaders, first a majority of one in the Congress, and afterwards increasing that majority by various means—repudiated their former professed principles of connection with England; broke faith with the great men and parties in England, both in and out of Parliament, who had vindicated their rights and professions for more than ten years; broke faith also with their numerous fellow-subjects in America who adhered to the old faith, to the old flag, and connection with England, and who were declared by resolutions of Conventions, from Congress, provinces, counties, to townships and towns, enemies of their country, rebels and traitors, and treated as such.[102] Even before the Declaration of Independence, some of these popular meetings, called Conventions, assumed the highest functions of legislation and government, and dealt at pleasure with the rights, liberties, property, and even lives of their Tory fellow citizens. There had been violent words, terms of mutual reproach, as in all cases of hot political contests; but it was for the advocates of independent liberty to deny to the adherents of the old faith all liberty of speech or of opinion, except under penalties of imprisonment or banishment, with confiscation of property. For a large portion of the community[103] to be thus stript of their civil rights by resolutions of a Convention, and reduced to the position of proscribed aliens or slaves, must have been galling to Loyalists beyond expression, and well calculated to prompt them to outbreaks of passion, and retaliations of resentment and revenge, each such act followed by a corresponding act from the opposite party.[104]
It might be supposed that forbearance and respect would have been shown to those who remained "steadfast and immovable" in the traditional faith of British monarchy and British connection, notwithstanding a corrupt and arbitrary party was in power for the time being; but the very reverse of this was the case on the part of those who professed, as one cardinal article of their political creed, that "all men are born free and equal," and therefore that every man had an equal right to his opinions, and an equal right to the expression of them; but all this was reversed in the treatment of the Loyalists. Mr. Hildreth well describes the position and treatment of the Loyalists, both before and after the Declaration of Independence, in the following words: