University of Oklahoma Graduate College Antiquity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ANTIQUITY AND LOYALIST COUNTER-NARRATIVE IN REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA, 1765-1776 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By DANIEL R. MOY Norman, Oklahoma 2012 ANTIQUITY AND LOYALIST COUNTER-NARRATIVE IN REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA, 1765-1776 A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY BY ______________________________ Dr. Paul A. Gilje, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Alfred S. Bradford ______________________________ Dr. Robert L. Griswold ______________________________ Dr. Catherine E. Kelly ______________________________ Dr. Farland H. Stanley, Jr. © Copyright by DANIEL R. MOY 2012 All Rights Reserved. To my mother and father, Loida and Carl ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many who have inspired, guided, and assisted my work in this study. Paul Gilje, my committee chair, has been my academic mentor throughout my doctoral work and I have benefited greatly from his expertise, insight, and constant support. I am also thankful to the other members of my committee—Stephen Bradford, Robert Griswold, Cathy Kelly, and Farland Stanley—who prepared me intellectually and professionally to investigate the ideological nexus of the ancient world and the American founding. I am especially grateful to Stephen Bradford and Farland Stanley who took me under their wing as a U.S. Air Force Captain and mentored me in the classics, both in the classroom and in the field, overseeing my master’s research during two summers at Caesarea Maritima, Israel. My interest in the classics and their influence in the American founding began with a seminar paper I wrote for Robert Shalhope whose mentorship in the intellectual history of classical republicanism was invaluable in preparing me to approach this study. I am especially indebted to Carl Richard who, in 2004, suggested I consider looking at the classics in the Revolution from the opposing, loyalist perspective—at the time, I never imagined how valuable that burst of academic insight would prove to be. I also want to thank my colleagues at the U.S. Air Force Academy Department of History—Mark Wells, Jeanne Heidler, and Derek Varble in particular—who have supported and encouraged my graduate work over the years. Finally, my thanks to my dear friends Sharon Hagen and Michelle Brockmeier who enthusiastically read my work and have been a constant source of personal and professional encouragement for many years. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract vi Introduction 1 1. J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur and the Loyalist Persuasion 19 2. Classical Virtue and the British Subjects of the American Colonies 72 3. A Conspiracy of Catilines: A Loyalist Perspective on Liberty and Tyranny 137 4. Countering an American Insurgency: The Language of Classical Loyalty 191 Conclusion 262 Bibliography 270 v ABSTRACT This study explores one aspect of the American founding that scholarship has not yet fully investigated, namely, the ways in which loyalist advocates used the ancient literature of Greece and Rome to make their case against the Revolution. Neither an apologetic for the loyalist side of the revolutionary controversy nor a survey of loyalist intellectual thought, this study examines how the loyalist persuasion, much like the spirit of Whig patriotism, stemmed naturally from longstanding and earnest convictions concerning the tenets of English liberty, ideas anchored in the models and antimodels of classical antiquity. Like their patriot countrymen, loyalists shared an intense concern with conspiracies against liberty and a profound interest in the literature of the ancient past, and they looked to the classics to help them interpret the signs of the times and add rhetorical force and legitimacy to their polemic. While underestimating the important ways loyalists looked to antiquity to make their case against the Revolution, we have come to assume that classical republicanism naturally favored a radical response to the transatlantic crisis in the 1760s and 70s. However, a closer examination of the loyalists’ use of the ancient literature reveals evidence to the contrary; the classical canon served both patriot and loyalist political strategies in the pre-revolutionary years. Affirming the significance of antiquity in the colonies for all British Americans, the author seeks to recapture a broader view of the ideological origins of the American founding, examining the loyalists’ use of the classics to assess the influence of the ancient literature in the colonial imagination and fully appreciate the radicalism of the decade leading up to 1776. vi INTRODUCTION I now come to speak of times and events of such magnitude and importance as to have engaged the attention, not of many single individuals only, or many single nations, but of the world, and the effects of which the world is likely long to feel. Men so studiously conceal and disguise the true motives of their conduct, and the real and ostensible causes of action are at such variance, and they are moreover oftentimes so very unreasonable, and inconsistent, that when the truth is predicated of them, it actually appears improbable and incredible. On my guard against all such sources of deception and error, I now undertake to speak of the side I took in this great controversy. Jonathan Boucher Looking back over the colonial debate of the pre-revolutionary years, Jonathan Boucher, the Anglican cleric and loyalist advocate from Maryland, set out to reveal the true motivations of the patriotic movement and describe his rationale for opposing the American Revolution. 1 In his sermons and letters, Boucher reflected the sentiment of many fellow conservatives who perceived the Revolution to be an unnatural, unjustifiable fabrication, the design of a few usurpers who enticed their countrymen to rebel against the crown under the pretense of patriotism. Loyalists like Boucher argued that true liberty already existed in America and could only exist within the framework of the English constitution, the great bulwark of freedom in the modern age and the embodiment of all that the ancient writers had envisioned concerning the virtues of republican government. Rebellion was more than defying royal authority—it was the 1 Jonathan Boucher, Reminiscences of an American Loyalist, 1738-1789, Being the Autobiography of The Rev’d. Jonathan Boucher, Rector of Annapolis in Maryland and afterwards Vicar of Epsom, Surrey, England , ed. by his grandson, Jonathan Bouchier (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, Inc., 1967), 103- 104. 1 utter rejection of the classical tenets of liberty that had been affirmed and sustained by the laws and precedents of the English system of government. This ideological, moral aspect of loyalist thought, steeped in the rich tradition of ancient Greece and Rome, has been largely omitted from studies of the loyalist persuasion and absent in the wider analysis of the American Revolution. This study is not an apologetic for the loyalist side of the revolutionary controversy, nor is it a survey of loyalist intellectual thought. Rather, it seeks to explore one aspect of the American founding that scholarship has not yet addressed, namely, the ways in which loyalist advocates used the classics, the ancient literature of Greece and Rome to make their case against the Revolution. The supposition that the classics were influential, even essential in the ideological origins of the American Revolution has been studied at length. However, while paying great attention to the patriot side of this observation, and very little to the loyalist counterargument, historians have led readers to presume that the political ideals of the ancient world naturally fostered the rise of a revolutionary mentality in late eighteenth-century America such that the Revolution, from an ideological point of view, was the inevitable outcome of centuries of classical republican discourse reaching back through the Enlightenment and the Renaissance to the canon of classical literature. One reason for this oversight in the scholarship has been the way in which historians have assessed the influence of the classics as secondary to the Whig discourse of the revolutionary period. 2 The premise that Whig writers used the classics primarily as supporting references and illustrations, secondary to their greater political agenda, predisposed the scholarship to assume a natural affinity 2 Carl Richard suggested this to be the case in his analysis of the influence of the classics on the founders. See Carl J. Richard, The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 121-122. 2 between the writings of Aristotle and Cicero and the Whig-patriot side of the revolutionary debate; it also overlooked the potential of the classical literature to speak directly to the transatlantic world on such themes as civic virtue, liberty and the threat of tyranny. This natural association of the classics with the founders implied that those who opposed the Revolution must have been guided by something less noble than the high-principled, “self evident” tenets of classical republicanism. The fact the loyalists acquired the stigma as the losers and villains in America’s struggle for independence contributed to that assumption. However, the civil divide that pitted loyalists against patriots in the pre-revolutionary years was a sudden, unanticipated phenomenon; before 1765, no such political divide existed in the colonies, yet within