Effects of the occupation
There are several different ways to look at the effects of the British occupation of Philadelphia. Numerous people were displaced or fled the city, buildings and property was damaged or destroyed, people's lives and businesses were disrupted and fortunes were lost (and in some cases made). The population was permanently altered. Some who fled the city never returned, others ran to the city for British protection and remained after the army withdrew; still others who had long lived in Philadelphia left their homes to follow the British to New York, Halifax, London or elsewhere. The change in personnel led to a change in the economy, society and politics, particularly as loyalists and conservatives who were seen as to cozy with the imperial regime were replaced by patriots and radicals.
All these changes are worthy of attention, but the particular transformations I'll be focusing on are shifts in loyalty and conviction for Great Britain and/or American Independence. It's an accepted fact that Britain could not hope to subdue the entirety of America by force. Though the empire's armies and navies greatly outclassed the forces of the Continental Congress, they were themselves dwarfed by the vastness of the colonies' population and geography. If Britain was to retain America, it had to win the loyalty of her people and motivate the King's loyal subjects to reject and resist message of independence being spread by the 'revolutionaries.' This is the battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the American populace. In some respects Britain lost this battle before the Revolutionary War had even begun. John Adams famously wrote that the crucial mental shift that turned loyal British colonists into revolutionary American citizens was "effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was spilled at Lexington." Such might have been the case in New England, where the hammer of British oppression had come down the hardest in 1774 when Parliament closed the port of Boston and effectively nullified Massachusetts's right to govern itself. Elsewhere, however, the people of the American colonies were still uncertain of where their loyalty lay, and over the course of the war many would come to question whether American independence was truly worth the blood and treasure it would cost to achieve.
As the British military captured the great cities of America (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston...etc), it subjected itself and Britain to the scrutiny of uncertain Americans. Along with the royal governors and crown appointees, the British army became the foremost representative of the King and Parliament in America, capable of dispensing justice or tyranny, of establishing decency or disorder, of preserving or violating the rights of the colonists. Through its administration of the occupied cities, the army had the ability to win over reluctant revolutionaries and to motivate apathetic or insecure loyalists to stand-up to their more radical friends and neighbors. Yet it also risked alienating its existing allies, driving would-be friends of the government into the arms of revolutionaries, and proving that the rhetoric of the revolution condemning British rule was all too true.
My dissertation will attempt to weigh the how the activities of the British army in Philadelphia and the other occupied cities affected this battle of for hearts and minds. By looking through the eyes of a variety of contemporaries (rich and poor, white and black, loyalist, patriot and neutral) I hope to discover how the people's perception of the British empire, and consequently their perception of American independence, shifted as a result of the occupations. Did the military's presence serve to justify the King's rule and support the promise a peaceful and prosperous reunification with the empire? Or did it appear to vindicate the accusations of the ardent revolutionaries and prove the absolute necessity of independence? More broadly still, what inherent challenges did Britain's occupying army face (or must any occupying army face) in attempting to simultaneously maintain order, support a war effort, and win friends among the populace?
Throughout the war, the British army was plagued by its inability to hold all the ground it could conquer. Only rarely could Washington do more than retreat in the face of British advances, and local militia companies offered little resistance to the royal army. As the army cleared the revolutionaries from a county or region, the loyal supporters of the King would emerge, declaring their hitherto secretive allegiance to the empire and (all too often) using the protection of the British army to avenge themselves on local enemies who had sided with the patriots. Yet while Britain could easily invade many areas, it lacked the manpower and resources to maintain a presence in many of them at once. Inevitably, the army would eventually move on to its next objective or withdraw back to its strongholds. Then, bit by bit, the revolutionaries and their militias would return from their exile and the loyalists, who before the army had come had been protected by either their feigned neutrality or false mouthing of revolutionary slogans, would find themselves exposed to the wrath their neighbors. The result was severe damage to loyalist morale and a steady loss of faith in Britain's ability to protect its subjects.
This phenomenon has been recorded in various places in the Hudson Valley of New York and in the Carolinas. But Philadelphia offers the largest and most dramatic example. Over the course of a single year, the city went from being the 'capital' of the new American nation and seat of the Continental Congress, to the headquarters of the conquering British army, back to the epicenter of revolutionary politics. Those who rashly or prematurely declared themselves for one side or the other often paid dearly when the city became the center of gravity for their opponents. On the other hand, neutrals risked suffering assaults from both sides for their lack of conviction. What became of loyalty to the crown and revolutionary fervor in the midst of this tumultuous period? How devastating was the British withdrawal to their cause?
The social history of Revolutionary Philadelphia offers a us a sharp and severe lesson on the effects of political instability and on the suffering and disillusion that can result when a government, army, or political movement cannot (or does not) standby protect the people who support it.
No comments:
Post a Comment