American History Dialogue

By Madeline Langlinais

Loyalist: Okay. We both know why we’re here. Let’s keep this conversation as civil as possible, if you don’t mind. One person will say their piece and then the other will refute it calmly and with reason and fact, alright?

​

Patriot: Fine. Who starts?

L: I have a coin here

P: I call heads.

L: It’s heads.

P: Okay, cool.

L: So you’ll voice your grievances and I’ll disprove your logic, okay?

P:  Alright! First off, the Stamp Act was an outrage! A tax on every piece of paper. If you want to do anything legal, from getting married to being licenced for a job, to dying even, you’d have to pay a tax on every single document. Newspaper too! And dice & playing cards! Do you know how much money it costs to buy a pack of cards? Ten shillings! Ten shillings!!![1]

L: Are you done screaming? Alright then. Firstly, you have to remember we just finished fighting a war with France. Wars are expensive and we have a lot of national debt. Secondly, the average tax payer in Britain (and most of the other colonies, mind you) pays 20 shillings a year in taxes. We pay an average of 1.5 shillings. You tell the mother country to stop their coddling, but throw a hissy-fit and go on a boycott when responsibility comes knocking? Honestly!

P: Responsibility, my arse. Speaking of the war, the Appalachian boundaries were a terrible idea. We had just won the war, after losing so many of our friends, in order to secure that land for ourselves, and then we were just going to give it back to the enemy? Uh-uh, no way. And even if they had enforced that law, we already had settlers beyond the Appalachian borders by then. So it would have been pointless anyway.

L: The Proclamation of 1763 was meant to limit the boundaries of the colonies, that’s true. But you have to remember there were French settlers living in the west territories and Indian tribes too. Just because we won the war, doesn’t mean they weren’t going to fight back while we took their lands. And, after the war, we didn’t even have enough resources to send troops if a riot started, much less manage the politics of gaining more colonies.

P: Alright then. How about Dunmore's Proclamation in 1775. By promising freedom to our slaves in exchange for joining the royal forces, that blasted Earl nearly caused a widespread slave revolt! So many good people lost their slaves then, on both sides, mind you, Patriots and Loyalists!

L: Yes, he did. I can’t say I admire the fellow either, especially since his plan didn’t even work. But it was an interesting tactic. If it had worked, not only would he have been able to force the rebels to abandon their cause in favor of quelling the revolts, but his troops would have grown exponentially. I think he actually did gain some troops through it all, but most of them died due to smallpox.  

P: Here’s another one! The Navigation Laws of 1651! All those duties and taxes on foreign imports were outrageous. And I mean, I know a great deal of people just ignored those laws when they were made because there was no way to enforce them, but that's no reason to just randomly start enforcing them like they did in 1763!

L: Sorry my friend, but that’s where you’re wrong. Haven’t you heard of Mercantilism? Accordingly, a nation’s wealth can only be measured in the amount of gold and silver it has. There’s also the Zero Sum rule: “My enemy’s loss is my gain.” Therefore, to maintain our wealth, we must regulate our trade! The duties on foreign goods were meant to encourage the colonies to buy English goods instead of Dutch ones. That is the entire purpose of colonies anyway, to enrich their Mother Country.

P: I’m not stupid, you know! You think I’m just a rebellious nihilist, but I have philosophies on my side, too!  

L: Really?

P: Yes really! John Locke’s social contract theory states that humans are born rational, and therefore decided to live with a society because it best protects the natural rights of man; life, liberty, and property! This means that, according to him, the purpose of society is for government to protect and for the people to obey. But, if the government misuses its powers, like right now, then the people can overthrow the government and replace it with one that works. 

L: That’s an amazing point! At least it would be, if it counted. Don’t get me wrong, I’m truly impressed by your arguments. But unfortunately, I’m obligated to shoot as many holes in them as I can. You can’t just declare that John Locke’s theory is greater than the law just because he wrote a book, or else Calvin and Hobbes, which both contradict Locke and each other, would also be just as valid.

P: Well then, I’m sorry my friend. We’re down to my last complaint. I didn't want it to come to this, but you leave me no choice. Virtual Representation.

L: Crap!

P: The scandalous belief that a member of the British parliament can speak for the interests of all British Subjects, instead of just the district that elected them. By telling us that the parliament members have our best interests in mind,  and that therefore we are virtually represented, they have denied us any true representation in parliament, and have prevented us from being able to defend ourselves from all of these terrible injustices in the first place!

L: ...Damn. Yeah, even I couldn’t find a defense for that one. Virtual representation sucks, and the only reason I can think of for it to have existed in the first place is to keep the colonies under control.  I’m sure that if you asked every person in the entire thirteen colonies, loyalists or not, they would agree on that too.

P: So you admit it!

L: Yes, but that doesn't mean that we should just split! I’m sure we can figure out some sort of

diplomatic compromise that doesn't get anyone killed. We are talking about a war here!

P: I think it’s a little too late for that, honestly.

L: Yeah… I’ll see you around Ed. I hope.

P: Me too, Pete. Me too.

[1] $54 USD!