Loyalist Arguments -- a Persuasive

Loyalist Arguments -- a Persuasive Plea to Remain tied to Great Britain In this year of 1775, in this month of May, at this Second Continental Congress, during a time of economic and political divisions and trials -- both within the colonies and between the colonies and our mother country, it is very easy to demean and dishonor the names of loyalists to the crown as mere lackeys for Imperial power, as moneyed title-holders of wealth and property who are insensitive to the considerable demands that the Stamp Act has placed upon American printers, and the Tea Act has had upon all American colonies.

However, this is far from the case.

Recall how the Episcopal clergyman Samuel Seabury, although a loyal supporter of His Majesty George III, argued against sending the East India tea to the American colonies? He stated in no uncertain terms that this was an injudicious decision that increased American discontent, because it added to the American opposition to the three-penny Townshead duty? (Early America, "Why the Loyalists Lost," 2000) He called for a reformation, not a sundering between King and state, however, and reason rather than heat in the language used between colonies and the British crown.

Thus Seabury has also argued that the colonialist's understandable dread of British monopolist control upon their trade should not outweigh the benefits of loyalty to both sides. Remember as well, the considerable costs to the Mother country for the expenditures caused by the French and Indian Wars! These wars protected America, not simply enriched the coffers of Great Britain.

Surely it is reasonable that the colonies' prosperity combined with our apparent ability to furnish financial assistance to our mother country, would make a complete refusal to make any contribution an act of contempt, a brushing aside the numerous economic benefits derived from military security as well as the money derived from trade with Britain by the colonies s? (Early America, "Why the Loyalists Lost," 2005) Furthermore, a refusal to provide any remuneration to the drain upon English coffers would, likely lead a refusal to His Majesty's refusal to help support further military protective efforts at home.

This could result in greater number of savage attacks to our lands, a greater financial drain upon our tradesmen because of a lack of security and access to trade routes, and, at worst, armed conflict between the mother country that would profoundly disrupt out entire economy and current way of life.

Surely the aims and policy of the Congress and the patriot leaders, can be met with such adjustment as would assure to the colonies greater local self-government, but still have full recognition of English and royal parliamentary authority with reasonable representation? (Ward & Trent, VII.25) We must work together with England to create a restructured Empire, which guarantees to our American colonies proper control over internal taxation and local matters, with the British Parliament still keeping its sovereign power to legislate in imperial issues that less directly involve our nation.

The benefits associated with this kind of reform will balance American colonial fears about potentially oppressive taxes, and future disputes about the exact bounds of Parliament's authority could more likely be prevented, given such safeguards.

(Early America, "Why the Loyalists Lost," 2005) Support for the American colonial control of local matters and taxation does not necessarily signify that we Loyalists advocate a division between the imperial powers and our own -- and does not mean we believe our tenuous support for greater local control means that the Revolutionaries are justified in seeking severance from the British power. Rather, it is an effective effort at a compromise. Only when a king becomes a tyrant are the governed peoples not remiss in seeking revolt.

In this case, although evident tensions exist between the colonies and King George III, this does not mean that the King's taxation to repair the costs the colonies have incurred upon the mother country are unjust in the sense that the taxes were imposed simply to enrich the king's own pockets -- such self-aggrandizing enrichment is the definition of tyranny, not simply disputing the best way to go about paying for a past, long and costly war.

Sovereigns have a duty to protect the rights, such as the life, liberty, and property of their subjects, and if rulers abrogated this trust, the ruler's subjects could legitimately withdraw their allegiance and unite to form a new government. But in this case, the Crown protected our lives during the French-Indian wars, protected our liberty from savage powers, and the safety of our property. Moreover, if war and sundering with Great Britain is sought, the lives of all colonial dwellers will be threatened.

The economic drains of a conflict will impinge upon our colonial liberty, and our property destroyed. Economic resistance of the aforementioned tariffs has caused, one might argue, more economic harm than the taxation itself. Thomas.