Should the American colonists have been Patriots or Loyalists?

Essay by pepsiholicJunior High, 9th gradeA+, March 2003

download word file, 4 pages 5.0

Following the French and Indian War, the French were driven out of North America and Britain was in debt; they expected the colonists to help pay this back. After the war, there was tension between the British soldiers and the colonists. In Boston, fights broke out, leading to the Boston Massacre, where a mob threatened British soldiers. The colonists despised British soldiers, and vice versa. Soon, it became clear that a British colonist in North America had to make a choice: to become a Patriot, opposing British rule, or a Loyalist, supporting British rule. Patriots protested the fair taxes and policies imposed on them, boycotting goods and committing violence. They used propaganda to feed the public false information. On the other hand, Loyalists felt that they should have been loyal to the mother country and King George III. Consequently, colonial radicals tarred and feathered Loyalists, a painful and humiliating torture.

As one can see, Great Britain protected and defended the colonies, earning the right to impose taxes and laws, and those taxes were fair and beneficial to the colonists - therefore proving that one should be a Loyalist.

Great Britain was the mother country of the North American colonies; it protected and defended them with its soldiers and without it, the colonies would not have existed, giving the British the right to control them. For example, the British protected the colonies during the French and Indian War. George Washington and his troops started the war with the skirmish at Fort Duquesne, yet the British had to finish the war for them. The colonists could not defend themselves, as most were farmers; on the other hand, the British had many more troops that were professional and well trained. William Pitt had sent thousands of soldiers to help...