No. of Recommendations: 9
Netsifter on Loyalist views of Colonial boycotts:
Loyalists criticized patriot boycotts for being destructive, irrational, and coercive, believing they harmed the colonists' own property and trade more than they hurt the British. They viewed the boycotts as a form of mob rule by self-interested patriots, which they believed would lead to anarchy and the ruin of the colonies through separation from the British Empire. Loyalists argued that the colonists' grievances did not justify such extreme actions and that peaceful reconciliation with Britain was a safer and more sensible path.
Arguments against patriot boycotts
Economic harm: Loyalists argued that non-importation agreements hurt American merchants and traders more than they hurt the British, as they damaged local businesses and the colonial economy.
Coercion and hypocrisy: They saw the enforcement of boycotts by patriot committees as a form of tyranny, where the patriots assumed and exercised power without authority, charging them with hypocrisy.
Mob rule: Many Loyalists, often from more conservative or wealthier backgrounds, feared the "mob violence" associated with patriot protests, believing it threatened their property and social order.
Irrationality and immaturity: Loyalists viewed actions like the Boston Tea Party as childish and a sign that patriots were mistaken about their ability to get everything they wanted, and that a united British Empire was beneficial.
Threat to stability: They believed separation from Britain would be foolhardy and lead to the financial ruin of America by severing ties with the world's largest trade empire.
Threat to rights: Some Loyalists feared that the "anarchy" of independence would ultimately destroy the very rights the patriots claimed to be fighting for.
Because there’s nothing new under the sun.
