tv British Loyalists during the American Revolution CSPAN August 16, 2022 2:20pm-3:09pm EDT
the american revolution. it really is wonderful, thank you so much, woody, for your time and for really breaking open this moment in history that is still so present for us in a way that is engaging and also really compelling. >> well, i really appreciate you talking to me about it, nicole. it's been a lot of fun, thank you. >> thank you.
it is my honor to introduce our guests dr. jay patrick mullins associate professor of history and public history director at marquet chang associate professor of history at sarah lawrence college hi, patrick. doctor eileen chang, associate professor of history at zahra lawrence college. hi, i lean. and suzanne -- executive director of the surely uses house right here in boston in roxbury. hi, suzie. thank you all for joining us. i am so honored and delighted to have you all here. i want to get us started with a background on the loyalists. can you give us a brief background on the people who identified as loyalists, whether lives looked like leading up to and during the
revolution, and what happened to them after the war? patrick, do you want to start us off on this? >> sure and gina, thanks for having us. so, i see there have been kind of three basic categories of loyalists. there are people who really just wanted her main neutral in the war, but because they were trading in violation of -- or selling livestock to the british, they were -- a lot of the native americans wanted to stay out of the war, but they got sucked into it. there were some religious groups like quaker's amanda knights who were opposed to one principal and were also seen as siding with the british. there were also loyalists who, some of them who believed in tory principles of obeying the king no matter what, and that resistance to lawful authority was a christiansen. these were, like, -- clergy but there were a small
group. i think most loyalists were people who have the same belief principles of constitutional's liberties that the patriots did. they just thought that the violence of the sons of liberty -- the oppressiveness of -- was a greater threat to constitutional liberty then crown and parliament. i guess we will see through our discussion today what happens to these folks. they have very different destinies. >> suzie, do you have anything to add to that that you would like to share? >> just one of the, when you sort of come back 10,000 feet and look at the percentages, all of loyalists who didn't have the wherewithal to kind of take a stand, as patrick said, just remain neutral. they might have had an opinion, but they didn't say anything because it meant risking too much. that, you know, the middling
and lower classes of folks who were really more concerned about [inaudible] >> i think let's go a little deeper with this. i want to pass this on to eileen to start. loyalists have a wide range of backgrounds, motivations, and expressions of sympathy for great britain. what were their motivations for harboring pro british sentiment and whatever the consequences of that in their daily lives? was it just as simple as, we are british? >> well, i mean, i think it's true that the loyalists were pro british, and this ties in a little bit to what patrick was saying about how the -- shared a lot of the same principles as the revolutionaries. i think to say, oh, the loyalists were pro british and the revolutionaries were pro american does not really capture the complexities of the loyalties back then. that on the one hand, the revolutionaries were very much pro british themselves until 1775, 1776. you know, they were protesting all these british taxes, but it was on the basis that they thought of themselves as
british citizens, and i thought they weren't being treated as equal british citizens. and on the other side, the loyalists, while they were loyal to britain, they also saw themselves as true americans. but what they believed, and i think this is what really separates them in the end from the revolutionaries is that when it comes time for war and independents, that whatever problems they had in british policies, they thought war would be too destructive, they didn't think they could win against the british or even if they did and we came independent, that france or spain would just take over. and they felt that americans were better off under british rule trying to -- perform within the system and trying to survive outside that system. >> we just got a really great question in the chat right off the bat. thank you, michael, for this one. were loyalists called loyalists at the time or is that a more modern term? we should definitely talk about this, you know, in terms of our vocabulary as we keep going. what do people refer to loyalists as in the era? >> i think it depended on who
you were. i think for the revolutionaries, they called the loyalists tories. kind of to stigmatize them and make it seem like they were just pro monarchy. i think the loyalists do start adapting the term loyalist for themselves. i think sometimes starting around 1774, so, yeah i think from their perspective, they did see themselves as loyalist, but they were not seen is that by the revolutionaries. >> that's really interesting. does anybody else want to jump in on that kind of background about the loyalists? patrick, absolutely. >> i just wanted to echo eileen here. one of the massachusetts loyalists, daniel leonard, wrote in attacking john adams said, you know, you guys call us tories. well, if it or is someone who believes that the majority should be allowed to do what they want to, then call me oratory, right? so he kind of owned the word. i just want to concur that for
me, the problem is less explaining why some americans were loyal to britain, but why some americans didn't, right? you know, to the 17 -- the american colonists were enormously proud of in british. this is true of not just those who -- you know, english or scottish. they resisted parliamentary acts that they saw as unconstitutional in the british constitution, right? even when new england militia took up arms in 1775, they saw themselves, they took inspiration from the memory of the english civil war. [inaudible] the american revolution initially was kind of, they thought, the patriots sought as a continuation of that revolutionary tradition. >> patrick, let's kind of say on this topic with you a little bit more about the tragedy of
the loyalists, if you will. thomas hutchinson, great example of a really maligned figure, right after being forced to evacuate, he spent the rest of his life in england hoping to come home to america, but unable to do so. so this is a really interesting tragedy. people born in america, true, early american citizens, right? with feelings about the british constitution and their own government were forced to flee because of their affiliation. so, what happened to those people? did they become refugees? where were ex pat communities created? can you feel that for us a little bit, patrick? >> sure, a lot of loyalists did become refugees. this is particularly true in new england, where they were very much outnumbered, unlike, say, in parts of new york or the south. and when the british evacuated boston, they took about 3000 loyalists with them. these folks went to new england, some of them stayed, sorry, in
nova scotia. some of them stayed nova scotia, other loyalist settled in new york, some in ontario, a lot of these new england refugees relocated to london and became an x-factor immunity there. and then some loyalists were enslaved people who were liberated by the british army and found new lives in canada. some of those folks eventually would create a colony of free people in west africa, called cigarette leon. then there were some loyalists who did returned to the colonies, so the states at this point, and in some cases successfully sued to regain confiscated property. alexander hamilton actually represented all these people in new york. and in many cases, they were real lurie simulated into american society. this was less true in new england than in new york in the south, where there were larger numbers of loyalists to begin
with. but not all of them had the same -- behalf of many>> thanks, patric. suzie, do you want to add to that? >> i thought that was really interesting, that alexander hamilton worked on behalf of many of the ones who are coming back. there's a wonderful story about john adams reuniting with his friend, jonathan steward, their friendship had really broken up over the revolutionary war. when it was over, they saw each other and just gave each other a big hug at one point. i can't remember now if this was while adams was in the uk or whether it was back on home ground. but, you know, there were these bonds of friendship and love and family that sometimes were only temporarily broken by the revolution. >> it is emotional when you start to think about, it really. talk also about that tension of
bonds. i want to talk about the tension between breaking preservation and erasure. and that tension right there. and i want to start off with eileen for this one. to kind of address the tension between the preservation and erasure of loyalists in american history. how have loyalist writers and historians from the era been perceived from their time of writing to today? has our perception of the storytellers changed over time? does lifting why it was stories give a broader perspective of america's biography? >> i think there's been a lot of change. i think, in terms of how modern scholars have seen them. i think modern scholars have portrayed these loyalists writers and historians as almost double losers innocents. both losing in the sense of being defeated at the revelation and also losing in the struggle over historical
memory. and the sense that they are forgotten and failed to produce a powerful counter narrative that could compete with the patriotic narratives that were being produced by the revolutionaries. i think that is true, to some extent. but what's interesting is, if you go back to the time of the revolution itself and the years immediately afterwards and you look at american nationalist writers who are very pro revolutionary, were trying to promote a sense of nationalism, they're actually very ambivalent about these loyalist historians. on the one hand, they were disparaging of these loyalists historians and said they are prejudiced, pro british. on the other, hand these nationalist rioters are plagiarizing and copying from these loyalist historians for their own histories. and what they do is they copy them but in a selective way. and then twist these loyalist histories to use them and justify the revelation and promote a sense of american nationalism. a sense of american exceptionalism. i think the reason why it is important to learn about these loyalist historians is, in many, ways they played an important
role in shaping this narrative of american exceptionalism that i think we still have with us today. >> do you feel that -- and this is just jumping off one of our questions here. do you feel that, today, the general vibe in the historical community has more empathy toward loyalist historians we had previously given in a previous generation? >> definitely. i mean, i think that's been one major change. i think that, for a long time, the loyalists have been forgotten and vilified. and i think starting at the late 20th century their study to be some interest by modern historians and them. the last ten, 20 years that has really been a revival and resurgence of interest in the lowest among historians. i'm not sure that's reached the general public though. >> i will say, i am not a historian. and learning about this was fascinating to me, just the change of perception of this. so, if i am representative of
the general public it's very, very interesting. i want to send this off to suzie and patrick as well. how do you feel that the historical memory of the way less either helped create a sense of american nationalism, a sense of exceptionalism? what's your thoughts on that? >> again, i agree with eileen. that it played a role in helping to find american exceptionalism. i think precisely because the american colonists, american revolutionaries did more so culturally british, they needed a way to defend once they were in independent country. they did this less in terms of culture than ideology. so, they said that what makes you american is you believe in republicanism --
[inaudible] people have lived in monarchy. to be americas to believe that people should govern, and this makes us unique in the world. so that, then, when you have party conflict in the 17 90s between the federalists and the democratic republicans. the democratic republicans would call the federalists tories, as waves and you don't really believe in the people. this bee came a smear word. this holds into the 20th century. one of the things, i think, helped change, at least among scholars, their view of the loyalists is an increasing interest in the late 20th century in the history of native americans and african americans, people of color. because a face very stark choices about who side there are going to be on. we've kind of recovered the importance of the contributions of people of color in the revolution, by looking at those native americans who did side with the british as the best
way of preserving their land claims. or the enslaved african americans who did run the british lions and even take up arms on their behalf as the best way of retaining their freedom. so, this exchange of interest, but the americans, did was help us have more sympathy for the loyalist perspective. up>> suzie, do you have anythig you would want to add to that? as a steward of a loyalist monument, as it were. >> a pick up and eileen mentioned, that is that the scholars are looking at the loyalist histories but, in terms of the history we do at the shirley-eustis house we take a different tack. but we're not as much looking at the histories that loyalist throw. i do a little bit of research on that, and the historiography of the loyalists and how that worked. and preparing for this
presentation. it was sort of like it's always been in the background for me. so, i think that's an interesting take on that and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future, how these loyalist histories become more a part of the regular knowledge of history fans, i guess. >> i think a big part of it, right, is being aware of places like the shirley-eustis house and being aware of the loyalist monumental what happened in the monument. i want to pivot to patrick on this one, to start. after the revolution, monuments were removed and places where renamed. can georgia statue, for example, was toppled in new york when the declaration of independence was read. and in massachusetts, hutchinson, massachusetts was named our, or massachusetts after a british parliamentarian who is perceived as a better friend of the colonies than hutchinson. so, is this setting an american
president? actually connect these actions to the rule of statues today? the removal of statues of monuments in the community that do not feel they represent the heroes of stories we wish to celebrate. >> sure. in the beginning of the war, it wasn't clearly an anti british phenomenon. in the declaration of independence, the case of the soldiers marching down to the equestrian statue of the king a dental new york city, pulling it down. not just pulling it down but they cut off the kings head and then they fired a musket ball into the head. this is a symbolic thought. he was the closest they could get to executing the king and trying to make a break between our british passed and some kind of american past. anytime that a people collectively agree that we need to reinvent ourselves, we need to re-conceive of ourselves as
a community, you kind of need those sorts of symbolic acts of iconoclasm. as you, mentioned the revolution there were renaming's. kings college becomes columbia university. you have coat of arms that are pulled down and burned and replaced with new eight arms. we can look to this revelation experience as a president for what's going on today. as americans kind of rethink their history and, accordingly, we rethink their identity. i think it's necessary for us to not just revise our public memory about ribeyes our landscape, which is a way of making -- people around us. i would add that george washington was very upset when the soldiers pulled down the statue, because they did it without approval. this is kind of one of the big
conflicts we have today. if it is okay to remove monuments, on what terms should we do this, right? it's it okay to do would happened with the soldiers on their own pulling it down? is our legal process we need to go through? but i guess, should people subordinate to the rule of law, i probably sound like a tory at this point. so i should shut up. >> suzie, i think you had a story about this you wanted to share. >> well, in speaking to patrick's comment about the destruction of the equestrian statue of the king. of course, the american conflict or the american people, when they are asked about it frequently, were like we love the king, we love the king. the back of people still have a love affair with the british monarchy. so, as a symbolic piece, that was tremendously upsetting for a lot of people. because they still, even though they never met the cake and whenever meet the king they still had these warm personal feelings for this father figure. which, in british culture, had
1000-year history of our king is our father. and no revolution is ever really complete, right? you can do the symbolic things and then you drop back. the one that always, in this discussion about the destruction of monuments, the one that i strikes me is the destruction of the monument of the soldier who was the father of alexander dumont in france. the father of alexander dumont was a black man, born of enslaved women in dominika. and french nobleman. he was brought to france in the 1700s and educated like a young, white frenchman. he was free because he was on french soil. he rises to the military ranks, he fights in the revolution, he becomes one of napoleon's most
affective and revered generals. but as he rises through the ranks, napoleon grows to really hate him. and a plane is the one who puts him in prison for several years. asked for to hundred, years there is a statue of him erected. so, he's a black man but he fights for the brutality of the napoleonic armies. the nazis come to france, they see his statue and, because he's a black, man they destroy it. so, there is all these complexities that feed into it. but when you look at statues and monuments, we really only see the most simple, symbolic stories. when we make these stories we can always end up removing the complexity from them. so, these symbols are always going to be subject to the reinterpretation of emotion. >> i want to deep dive, really, into the complexity of the shirley-eustis house itself, of
what you are the executive director. it wasn't destroyed at the monument to the whale-ism, but rather was appropriated by american troops and later hosted extremely pro-american ceremonies like the celebration for the 1824 returned tour of lafayette. a major event and nationalism and historic memory of the revelations early americans. how do we, today, evaluate the historical significance of the house itself? is it a loyalist monument meant to communicate the enduring legacy of loyalists? or his base at significant because it was reinterpreted unoccupied by leading figures in american politics of the 18th century? >> so, actually, even though we talk about those things we kind of do neither in our interpretation. we developed a story in response to the architecture of the building and what the building represents.
it is an english, british country house in america. it's a high palladian architectural style, favored by born and bred brits like governor surely. it was not a colonial country house. because he is the governor, we interpret the house and the lives of the governor and his family as a sort of representations of the british empire. we talk about the legacy of the british empire that the house represents in sort of three ways. one is that any empire, and our terms of the british empire, conquered both land and people and exploited them. , so we can talk about the slave trade and the british role in the slave trade in the 18th century. we can talk about british imperialism's conquest of natural resources. you can start with the fair trade in new england and then move to the timber trade.
so, there is that piece of imperialism. wage later, both of these things perpetuate through american culture. are the legacy of these things, american and british. and i think we could talk about in terms of sort of what the british empire represents imprint on american culture is our persistent problem with wealth inequity. the poor laws were very much the impact for how we deal with poverty in america today. so, on some level, we actually talk about the continuities there. i'll give you just one example because i realize that was natural description before. for example, governor shirley was referred to as your excellency. we never call a governor that today in america. ditto for governor eustice, the democratic republic of governor of the commonwealth of
massachusetts after the revolutionary war. as ladies 1825, massachusetts governor still being called your excellency. what that represents is this continuity of british identity culture food, politics, religion, literature that persists in america as we, for many years, as we try to find this, you know, new national identity. and so, these other three subjects that i'm talking about before, their part and parcel of any empire. but in america, but they have a particularly british origin story. >> -- >> that's how we talk about the -- the loyalists and patriots don't want to swim through that larger current. >> i just want to jump in. we had some questions in the chat that are, it's a great discussion about the blind and
the unicorn painting. i did not know this, but they were evidently also ill taken down in pennsylvania state house. but to my first susan, susan l, asking if they were removing the -- state house in boston, they were. they were removed. however, they were put back, i believe the 18 70s, i've been told, to get the building to its original state. however, there was public backlash at the time. so when they reinstalled the line and the unicorn at the old state house in boston, they also installed an eagle as well. so that tension is there in our space, as well. but so, and i believe they were replaced, i want to say the 18 70s. but don't hold me to it. what you should do is come into our space and take a tour, and our brilliant interpretation team will take you to the
inflated -- i do was to deep time a little more into the monuments just in general. patrick, i think i want to pass this to you first. why were some monuments and properties or artifacts decimated, and others reappropriate it generally? >> a lot of the reasons for iconoclasm was symbolic to show that shift in allegiance and the shift in the regime. this was one of the reasons why the statute that was taken down in new york. but there were also practical calculations. i mean, the surely house was useful to the american army, and william vassal house in cambridge, you know, became command center for the continental army when it was located in cambridge during the siege of boston. one of the reasons why the new york monument was taken down was not just, oh, we will have
this proxy murder of the king, execution of the king, but it's 4000 pounds of lead in the hands of an army that was absolutely starred for ammunition. [inaudible] foundry and melted it down to 42,000 musket balls, and fired, as they put, it melted majesty back at the british army. so, a lot of these questions of what aspects of the old british regime were preserved and what were torn down had, to some degree, to do with symbolic cultural considerations, but also practical calculations. i agree with suzie that americans typically hold on to british culture, but they readapt it just like with the surely house. you know, when we are seeing god save the king, now we just keep the tone and we sing my country ties of the, right? same melody.
and speaking of restoring the line and the unicorn, there are some proposals with the empty pedestal in new york to replace the kings statue as a form of historic restoration, and that does not go over. so there are limits to, i think, how much americans are willing to hold on to their material british heritage as part of historic memory. but -- as well as symbolic considerations come into play. >> suzie, do you have anything you would like to add on to that? >> well, with respect to preservation rights, so in terms of these historic houses and the long -- is another with these eisen borough houses -- all loyalist houses that were preserved because people generally said, you know, well he's not there anymore, but it's a nice house. i would like that house, right? and in the surely house, for example, where the entire --
sort of destroyed at one point, the house itself is made of such heavy timbers, it's so stoutly built, that it was more expensive to, you know, sort of tear it down then it was actually just pick it up and move it across the street at one point. but because it was a nice house, right? so at some point, it doesn't really matter that it was a loyalist house. and, in fact, it becomes sort of a curiosity. >> eileen, i want to pop this one over to you. did historians preserve and erase loyalists in the same way monuments and material culture did? >> yeah, i think that's really interesting comparison and yes, i think especially when you look at what i was saying about how these early american national historians were copying and plagiarizing from loyalists historians, and then converting what they were taking from these loyalist historians into a nationalist message, i think it is very similar to what americans were doing with places like the shirley house in a way, let's
say, these american nationalist historians were occupying the works of a loyalist historian, in the way that americans were occupying these houses. and again, similar to i think both what patrick and suzie were saying, the fact that they are so dependent on these loyalists checks to construct their nationalist message shows that persisting influence and connection to britain, and the way they are readapt in that connection to serve, to create a distinctive sense of american identity. >> so the, do you have anything you want to add to that? >> well, i think just one of the things is that as we go forward, you know, for me, a public historian, and for patrick and eileen as scholars, what's really exciting is this looking, setting aside the black and the white and good guy, bad guy, just looking at the continuities to help us define who we are as a people because i think that's what people who visit the shirley-eustis house come away with. that they've been reached their
knowledge of their identity, their historical identity as an american, right? and what that means. but so, it becomes a solid story meant good guys, bad guys, black and white. >> question in the chat that we are getting for people who want to, you know, experience a monument to the loyalists. whether loyalist houses besides the long fellow house are open today, catherine kate has asked. >> so, i would say the royal house and slave quarters in medford are just an amazing sight and again, the lauren -- house in jamaica plain is a good one. i can't give any others at the moment, but they can reach out to me because there actually is, we have a brochure that sort of talks about the tory trail. so you can visit a bunch of tory houses in new england, and i can actually send a copy of that to whoever wants to reach
out to me, the shirley-eustis house. >> it's telling that we are strange to think of any loyalists landmarks, right? this issue that we are talking about, i would maybe suggest, like, for ticonderoga, which like the surely house was, you know, a british site that is readapted as an american site. the, staff there is really dedicated to telling the story of the british army, not just the americans. who occupied it and turned it around. and the role of the french and the native americans as well. so they're curators out there that are trying to recover those lost loyalists stories that are kind of buried under our long-standing patriot -- >> also susan al has suggested kings chapel still has a place for the royal governor to sit.
and mario pitt hall in middletown, new jersey, in monmouth county was also a chat suggestion to. thank you, thank you, our chat participants but i want to zoom back out and. bring us kind of now into where we stand today. so, rather than thinking of the loyalists as a thing, you know, you learn in elementary school. here are the good guys, it was the revolutionaries, and here are the bad guys, there were the loyalists. rather than thinking of them as villains in the story of how america came to be, how might we present them in a fairer and more nuanced way to students and the general public? >> i guess what i would say is that but, i would say one way to do that is to acknowledge that like the revolutionary, the loyalists were americans as well. and to make people recognize that the revolution is not just a war of independence by
americans against the british, but that it's also a civil war between americans. and between americans who shared many of the same values. >> patrick, do you have anything to add to that? >> yeah, i would say that in so far as there is a tradition in america of conscious objection and resistance to the draft for that people who hold those views in america cut today and in recent history can look to people like the quakers, the -- who were in a really terrible position of their religious convictions [inaudible] and in terms of those loyalists who were, you know, held -- principles and sided with the crown, i would say that what they were saying was that there needed to be the rule of law
often requires some check on majority will. and this remains part of the american tradition. it becomes interval to the u.s. constitution. and is central to our politics to the say. if we can step back and say, wait a minute, you know what? the loyalists never went away, right? the loyal tradition is really central to the american tradition. then i think we will understand the loyalists and the revolutionary area in a different light. >> suzie, do you have anything to around us out and that idea? >> well yes, i would say definitely visit the homes of the loyalists because you will be not only sort of learning that history kind of upfront and, you know, environmentally, but you are exploring some really wonderful institutions that are doing a lot of work to preserve our local and national history, and to preserve our story in all its complexity. >> i want to pull a fantastic question out of the chat. i love this. it's benjamin a says, where
does the study of loyalism go from here? what's, if possible, new avenues would you like to see the study of loyalism go down? >> there have been some really good recent search on the so-called ordinary people that have become loyalists. the thomas hutchinson's, william franklin's, are well known. but as historians become more appreciative of the rule of ordinary people so-called in history, i think there's more attention on those common folk who didn't, there was an earlier kind of narrative that the loyalists where the aristocrats. they were the big landholders, they were the -- merchants and this was kind of class work, right? they were driven out, you know, score one for the common man. but there were plenty of common people who remain loyalists and suffered terribly. as a result of that.
and their stories, i think, are being told, but need to be told more. and particularly in the case of african americans and native americans, who have less documented lives. >> suzie, i thought you had something to add to that as well. >> i think it would be interesting to. i was sort of, patrick sort of took the wind out of myself, i guess. i think it's been interesting, as i sort of continue to read in this area also is to look at, and this is not looking at the loyalists exactly, but the british sailors and soldiers were essentially considered, you know, expendable people, right? they were frequently, there were a lot, a lot of complaints not only from americans who are being occupied, but also from british, the british gentry about how rough the british soldiers are, right? and how they are just destructive. they are, you know, because they are paid very, very poorly,
the navy and the british, you know, generals, they really are considered expendable people. and so, i think that's something that has not been sort of cut out, i think, a lot and talked about in a sort of bigger picture of the revolutionary war, and what these men thought, you know? how they experienced it. >> that's fascinating. >> they are there to fight on behalf of the king, but mostly they don't care. they just want to eat. >> right, right. we are going on what you just said, that you've been reading up, you know, as you've encountered in your reading, we've got another question from alan w in the chat. what books would our panelist recommend if somebody wants to read more about loyalist history? t some>> liberty -- by -- i think i saw that pop up in the chat. some older literature, mike
thomas hutchinson. or wade allen's loyalists helped for my understanding of loyalists as a graduate student. there's a lot of good new literature. i would suggest reading eileen's book to. put it up like for yourself there, eileen. >> one book that's a relatively new book and i think ties under this issue of new directions with loyalists is something that we haven't talked much about, the issue of women loyalists. it is one new book by casey tell men about women loyalists, but i think that's an area where much more can be done. being a woman at that time, married women at that time were not given any kind of political rights or political identity of their own. so, i think that this had all kinds of interesting questions about what it means for a woman to be a loyalist. or can woman be a loyalist if she's not allowed political choices? i think that something that would be worthy of more study. and i think that book, by case
he told, men addresses some of these issues. >> -- also on loyalist women, but i may be mistaken on that. james potter. >> right, yes, you're right. >> eileen, your book is the one that patrick is referring to, the plane and noble garb of truth? or do you have another one coming out? >> that book, i talk in one chapter about the loyalists. yeah, it's really the one i'm working on is more focused on the loyalists. but it's not done yet. >> as soon as it's done and we get that info, we will send it out to folks if they are interested. gosh, you guys in the chat. you guys are giving us such amazing, amazing questions. this might be a hard one to answer, i know we only have a few hot seconds before i have my last question for our panelists. but allen w. coming at you with a great one. this is a doozy.
but do you think the psychological effects was on the waitlist for big banished from the colonies? does anybody have a thought about that, with that narrative would look like? >> i don't think there is a single narrative, which is why i think it's hard to answer. i think loyalists really various types of how they dealt with being banished. praised, ample you mentioned thomas hutchinson. i think he really suffered. he was never happy in england, he wanted to go home, he spent all the time trying to justify what he did. so, i think it did have a really detrimental psychological effect on him to be banished like that. because he felt like he had lost his home. but i think my -- book that was mentioned, she talks about how a lot of these loyalists are quite resilient and find ways to adapt to being exiled and find some of the things we consider american and take them into these other areas and spread them to the rest of the british empire. >> i would agree.
i think that a lot of the loyalists who relocated from the york and new jersey to canada took enormous pride in themselves as being where the ones who remained true. we kept our oaths. and to this day, there's a lot of people in ontario who pride them selves on being part of the empire loyalists. big part of anglo canadian identity, where the north americans who weren't drunks, that's what they come out and saying. for the other people, from the perspective of other people, for instance enslaved people, the removal from would becomes the united states is not necessarily a trauma, its literal liberation. physical and spiritual liberation. the chance to start a new life. not to say it's going to be easy for them, it won't. >> great around us out on this closing question because it's a big one. what about the loyalists haven't we talked about that people should know? >> that so many of them just, i
think as i said at the beginning, kind of melted into the woodwork. they didn't have the wherewithal the speak out of their little communities. a lot of them, for example the minister in hageman in that time, very well respected man, was able to tow the line between his parishioners who were patriots and those who are loyalists. because there is such a respected man of the community he was left alone. i think that story, community bonds sometime overrode the larger political considerations. so, that history gets lost i think. >> i guess what i would say, we sort of alluded to this but i guess i would want to put more emphasis on this. just the way that the loyalists were treated. you know, we talked about how their exiled, their property was confiscated. but in fact, they were mistreated in all kinds of much more severe ways. they were tarred and feathered, they were tortured in all kinds
of cruel ways. i think it's important to bear that in mind because i think, to understand more about the way west is to understand more about the revolutionaries. see some of the limitations of the revolutionaries. that's why i think it's important to recover the story of the loyalists. >> i'd have to agree with suzie and eileen. suzie alluded to ebenezer gay and hingham, he was one of the ones who managed to negotiate this conflict. but there were, for instance, clergymen who were terribly mistreated and lost everything. and we're faced with beatings or torture. and they absolutely refused to given. as the americans of the republic, we see the muscle that guys. but they are stories of extraordinary moral courage that i think need to be told. as symbols of dissent, when sometimes the majority is wrong.
maybe we should cover the stories and tell them in certain ways american heroes. >> just recently reading marc peterson's book, the cities say to boston. he actually starts to reformulate a little bit, pushback on some of the stories of the patriots. so, same adams and his book comes out as really kind of a thug. that causes some awful things that happened at some of these loyalists. it's kind of give and take. >> here at the end of our time today and there is still so much to talk about. thanks so much, i hope to see you back here soon. thank you everyone.