Peter C. Newman. Hostages
to Fortune, the United Empire Loyalists and the Making of Canada.
Toronto: Simon & Schuster Canada, 2016.
Peter C. Newman is not an academic
historian, he is a "popular" historian. His treatments of
history are frequently infused with dramatic and verbose flourishes;
this one lacks the footnote references of a more academic historian,
relying largely on other authors as sources. No revelations here in
previously well-examined material. Newman is successful because as a
good storyteller he knows how to stir sentiment and appreciation for
his subject. How will Loyalist family researchers view his new book?
(In that vein, please ... save me from summaries of the book's
contents masquerading as
reviews.)
Rather than attempt a real book review
myself, not being a true historian nor qualified to speak to the
military aspects of the conflict, I recall an interview with Newman
almost two years ago that raised some questions or issues for me (in
the second half of the post).[1] Would
they appear and/or perhaps be resolved in this long-awaited book?
Some of the issues seemed to tinge the Loyalists with wimpyness. Was
I defensively over-reacting? The quotes below are from that
interview. Here's how those concerns go down now:
► Quote:
"Newman
said that hundreds of books have been written on the Loyalists but
almost all of them focus on genealogy – who begat whom – and not
the adventure of their exploits."
My
prior comment:
What
has Newman read, or not read, amongst the Loyalist literature?
"Almost all of them" are genealogical in nature? Whoa.
Numerous historians (and genealogists) may disagree.
New comment.
Ironic, isn't it, that Newman chose to use a Jarvis family as his
main device to tell the Loyalist saga? And it works, insofar as it
goes.
► Quote:
"The Loyalists were tortured and killed during the
American War of Independence when the Americans turned on anyone
loyal to the King. Tarring and feathering was the torture of choice,
Newman said."
My
prior comment: "Loyalists
were tortured and killed" —
but hey, they did fight
back and returned the favours.
New
comment: That, and other comments, had given me an impression
that Newman would somehow dwell on a portrayal of shamed, saintly
folks who crept away, unresisting, to another land. No. In the
book, he plays quite evenly with action and atrocities on both sides.
And possibly read my mind: "Strong in spirit and dedicated to
the concept and reality of duty, the Loyalists were brave in the face
of long odds, clearly demonstrating that they were anything but
wimps." (225)
►
Quote:
"A
religious, self-effacing people, the Loyalists spurned the
chest-thumping bravo of the Americans and developed styles and
attitudes that are very much like the Canadian personality of today,
he said."
My
prior comment:
"Religious" and "self-effacing" are extremely
broad, sweeping adjectives. No doubt many of them were perhaps one or
the other, perhaps sometimes both at once. Were they more "religious"
than their foe? What connotation does "self-effacing"
conjure?
New
comment:
Were those two descriptors implying something the Patriots were not?
Let's be real and remember that all ranks of society, all manner of
faiths, native-born in the colonies or immigrants, both sides had
every human virtue and failing. As for self-effacing, it's true we
Canadians today are not known for chest-thumping. Apparently we are
known for a widespread penchant of saying "Sorry." Should I
even ask if that characteristic is inherited from the Loyalists?
Oops, sorry ...
► "Instead
of settling disputes with guns and violence, the Loyalists preferred
to argue things out and reach a consensus, he said."
My
prior comment: As for "guns and violence," ask
military historian Gavin Watt. Did the Loyalist corps not strive to
give as good as they got? Or is Newman time-shifting several years
down the road to political issues?
New comment:
Picky me. But when did the
Loyalists do that amongst themselves, in matters that would incite
impulsive others to weapons? During the war? In their refugee camps?
On the evacuation ships? What kind of disputes is he referring to?
Okay, okay, I will stop.
Well, let's face
it. An interview is not a book. The book. Newman succeeds
again, in my opinion ... in a lightweight way, covering ground
related many times before (familiar to Loyalist descendants).
Although he extends his mandate to the War of 1812 and beyond, he
includes little on Aboriginal resettlement
apart from the expected Brant family mentions. And curiously, in a
very large bibliography, how could merely one of Gavin Watt's
books be present?
He gets the job
done, the tales told; his easily digestible manner will capture
popular imagination, much like Historica Canada's Heritage Minutes. I
look forward to potential book reviews by perhaps Mary Beacock Fryer
UE or Peter Johnson UE.
[1]
Wayne Lowrie, "Literary Lion Has Den in Gananoque," 6 April
2015, Gananoque
Reporter
(http://www.gananoquereporter.com/2015/04/06/literary-lion-has-den-in-gananoque
: accessed 31 May 2015).
© 2017 Brenda Dougall Merriman
© 2017 Brenda Dougall Merriman
