DIVISION XII.
THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS—THE FATHERS OF UPPER CANADA.
CHAPTER LXIX.
Contents—Definition—A division—Their principles—Our position—Ancestry—Dutch—Puritans—Huguenots—New Rochelle—English writers—Talbot—Falsehoods—Canadian and English ancestry—Howison—Maligner—Gourlay’s reply—Palatines—Old names.
ANCESTRY OF THE U. E. LOYALISTS.
Under this designation allusion is made to all who left, or were compelled to leave, the revolting colonies, and Independent States, and who sought a home in the wilderness of Canada. There is, however, a class which will be specially referred to, who, in subsequent years, were placed upon the “U. E. list,” and who, by virtue thereof, secured important privileges to themselves and family.
The United Empire Loyalist, was one who advocated, or wished to have maintained, the unity of the British empire, who felt as much a Briton in the colony of America, as if he were in old England; who desired to perpetuate British rule in America; not blindly believing that no imperfections could exist in such rule, but desiring to seek reform in a conservative spirit. This class, we have seen, became, as the tide of rebellion gained strength and violence, exceedingly obnoxious to those in rebellion against their King and country. It will be convenient to divide them into three classes, viz., (1.) Those who were forced to leave during the contest, many of whom took part in the war; (2.) Those who were driven away after the war, because they were known or suspected to have sympathy with the loyalist party, and (3.) Those who would not remain in the Republic, who voluntarily forsook the land of their birth or adoption, and removed to a country which acknowledged the sovereignty of the King of England. Many of this noble class relinquished comfortable homes, rather than live under an alien flag; they preferred, above all measure, to enter a wilderness and hew out a new home. They would live anywhere, endure any toil, undergo any privation, so long as they were in the King’s dominion, and the good old flag waved over their head, and their families. It was oft declared that their bones should lie on the King’s soil. These sentiments are taken, not from the imagination, but from the accumulated testimony of those who have supplied statements of family history. Elsewhere it has been shewn how cruel were the persecutions made against the “tories,” how relentless the spirit of vengefulness. All this, it may be said by some, should be forgotten,—buried in the past, with the whigs and tories, both of whom committed errors and outrages. Under certain circumstances this would be the proper course—the course indicated by the great Ruler; but, regarding the United States in the light derived from the statesmen, orators, and the press, it cannot for a moment be allowed. Until the descendants of those who successfully rebelled in 1776, cease to vilify our fathers; until they can find other subject matter for their fourth of July orations, than foul abuse of our country; until they can produce school-books which are not stained by unjust and dishonest representations; and books of a religious nature which are not marred by unchristian, not to say untruthful, statements respecting Britain and her colonies. Until the “Great Republic” can rise above the petty course of perpetuating old feuds, we cannot—we whose fathers suffered, cannot be required to shut our mouths, and thereby seemingly acquiesce in their uncharitable and malignant charges against the U. E. Loyalists. Washington was a rebel as much as Jefferson Davis, and history will accord to the latter a character as honorable and distinguished as the former. Washington succeeded against a power that put not forth the gigantic efforts which the United States did to subjugate the States over which Jefferson Davis presided. By the events of the civil war in the United States, we, the descendants of those who occupied the same relative position in the American Revolution, feel it right to be guided.
The most of the loyalists were Americans by birth. Their feelings of attachment to the realm, preponderated over the attachments which bound them to the homes of their childhood and maturer years. The great majority of those who settled Upper Canada were from the Provinces of New York, Pennsylvania, and the New England States. New York, originally a Dutch colony, had many loyal sons. Indeed this state was dragged into the rebellion. It follows that a goodly number of the settlers around the bay were of Dutch extraction, and possessed all the honesty and industry peculiar to that people. The U. E. list, and the larger list of refugees, include a large number of names unmistakably Dutch. But there came from this state as well, many a true son of England, Ireland, and Scotland, with a sprinkling of the Huguenots, and the Germans, the last of whom began to emigrate to America in 1710. Many of the settlers of Upper Canada may point with pride to their Dutch forefathers. Many Canadians have an equal right also to boast of their Puritan fathers. They more especially may point to the justice-loving ones who came to America with honest William Penn, whose son was also a refugee from the State his father founded, not by taking forceable possession, but by buying the land from the Indians.
Among the devoted band of firm adherents to the British Crown were not a few of the descendants of the Huguenots, whose fathers had been expatriated by the King of France, because they were Protestants, and who had found safe homes in England. So early as 1686, a number of Huguenots found their way to America. And from time to time, accessions were made to the number by emigration. They mostly settled in Westchester County, New York, in 1689, where a tract of land was purchased for them by Jacob Leisler, of the Admiralty, and there founded a town called New Rochelle, after Rochelle in France, noted for the stand its inhabitants took against Roman Catholicism. In 1700, New Rochelle had become quite a place, and here was found, when the rebellion had commenced, “a vast number of Militia officers loyal to the backbone.”—(Ruttan).
The ancestry of the U. E. Loyalists has been called in question, not by the rebels alone, but by British subjects. The few instances constitute, fortunately, but exceptions to a general rule. Travelers from Great Britain have repeatedly, perhaps we may say persistently, displayed an astonishing amount of ignorance of the people of Canada and its society. Allowance can be made for a certain amount of egotism, but downright bias is unworthy a high-minded writer. Incapable of examining any subject, except from a stand point exclusively English, they have found no difficulty in attributing the most unworthy and even scandalous causes to a state of society to them unusual, and seemingly abnormal. Perhaps no writer has so disgraced himself, in writing about Canada, as Talbot. Certainly no one more ignobly essayed to injure Canadian reputation in Great Britain than he. “Mr. Talbot has stated in his book that most of the Canadians are descended from private soldiers or settlers, or the illegitimate offspring of some gentlemen, or his servant.” The writer had no scruples in publishing a falsehood. Full well he knew how noble had been the conduct of the U. E. Loyalists as a class; who relinquished property, homes,—everything for a cause dear to their heart. Private soldiers indeed! They thought it no disgrace to enter the ranks to help to suppress an unrighteous rebellion. And the descendants of the private soldiers feel it an honor to claim them for sires. Mr. Talbot, we are informed, came to Canada to speculate in lands; and his record does not justify him in casting a stigma upon the fathers of Canada. Could we accept a slanderous statement as true, yet the question might be raised:—Is not their origin as good as many of the great houses of Great Britain would be found, were we enabled to trace back their pedigree. Probably, at the present time, and perhaps at no time, did more than a few read the pages of Mr. Talbot’s production. But lest there might come a time when the false statements should be reiterated, we felt it our duty to thus advert to the subject.
Another writer, to whom it may be well to refer, is one Dr. John Howison, who wrote Sketches of Upper Canada. His knowledge of Canada was pretty much confined to the Niagara district. Hear what the great (?) man said of the inhabitants. “They are still the untutored incorrigible beings that they probably were, when the ruffian remnant of a disbanded regiment, or the outlawed refuse of some European nation, they sought refuge in the wilds of Upper Canada, aware that they would neither find means of subsistence, nor be countenanced in any civilized country. Their original depravity has been confirmed and increased by the circumstances in which they are now placed.” This is a pleasant picture that the accomplished doctor draws of our forefathers. The very flagrancy of the falsehood has rendered the above statement as harmless as the doctor’s reputation is unknown. It is but too common a story for a stupid Englishman, with no other ideas than those derived from supreme egotism, to pass through our country, and after merely glancing at the outside of everything, proceed to give an account of the people of Canada. But this Howison was either guilty of drawing his views from Yankee sources, or of giving vent to some spiteful feeling. Robert Gourlay, who was no tory, referring to the above statement, speaks in this way:—“It is not true, it is not fair, it is not discreet. The first settlers of Upper Canada, in my opinion, were wrong headed men as to politics; but they were far from being bad-hearted men, and anything but “the ruffian remnant of a disbanded regiment.” They were soldiers who had done their duty: who had regarded with reverence their oath of allegiance; who had risked their lives a hundred times over in support of their principles; who had sacrificed all which the world in general holds dear, to maintain their loyalty and honor. They were anything but the “outlawed refuse of some European nation.” They adhered to the laws of Britain; and for the laws of Britain they bled. They did not “seek refuge in the wilds of Upper Canada, aware they would neither find means of subsistence, nor be countenanced in any civilized country.” It is a libel on the British Government to say they sought refuge, and a libel on common sense to say that men, who resolved to earn their bread by labour, under the worst circumstances in the world, could not find means of subsistence anywhere else. The whole passage is untrue, is shameful, and Dr. Howison should apologize for it in the public prints of this country. These very farmers whom he scandalizes so cruelly, stood up for British Government most noble during the late war, (1812), many of them lost their all at that time (in Niagara District), and to many of them the British Government is now deeply indebted. The mass of first settlers in Upper Canada were true men, and to this day there is a peculiar cast of goodness in their natures, which distinguishes them from their neighbours in the United States. There were among them ruffians of the very worst description. His Majesty’s ministers needed spies, and horse stealers, and liars, and perjured villains; and America furnished such characters, just as England can furnish an Oliver and an Edward. Why should a whole people be slandered because of a few? Dr. Howison wrote in Canada only to trifle, and now we see the consummation, we see a book very well written; very readable as a romance—the tale of a weak man; but as it affects men, worse than trifling—scandalous. To say all the ill he could of Canada, and no good of it is unfair—is deceitful—after all, in his parting exclamations, he “spoke about the happy shores of Canada.” The refined Dr. Howison, it would seem, remembered “many civilities” from the Canadians; but because he could not appreciate the nobility of nature when crowned by the rough circumstances of pioneer life, he must needs write a libel. No doubt his mind was influenced by Yankee tales of Butlers’ Rangers, and perhaps his exquisite sensibility was wounded, forsooth, because a Canadian would not touch his hat to him.” Robert Gourlay was a friend to Canada, a friend to humanity; he was not always right; but he was far more correct while in Canada than those who persecuted him. He was a patient and close observer, and made himself thoroughly acquainted with Canada, and his statement in reply to Howison’s utterances are fully satisfying. What was true of the settlers at Niagara, must remain true of the whole class of U. E. Loyalists. Notwithstanding the many adverse circumstances—the earnest contest for life, the daily struggle for food, their isolation from the influences of civilized life, the absence of regular ministers of the gospel, notwithstanding all, the old soldiers constituted a band of pioneers infinitely better than those who form the outer belt of settlers, at the present day, in the Western States.