Since the process of decolonization, but especially in recent decades, the study of British imperialism has involved examining the development of identity, not only in metropolitan Britain, but in the colonies as well. In the case of English-Canadian history J. M. S. Careless described three schools of thought in 1954, each providing a different stance on imperial Britain’s ties with Canada. The Britannic school, which was predominant from the 19th century until the early 20th century historians claims the British Empire is a community unified by common British institutions and including subjects of a common British race.
The Political Nationhood School is more critical of ties between Canada and imperial Britain, instead focusing on how Canada became its own autonomous nation. Finally, there is the Environmental School which argues that Canadian institutions and North Americans were shaped more by their “American” circumstances instead of just imperial British identity being the basis for Canadian identity . Careless himself “encouraged a trend away from viewing Canadian identities in their wider, imperial setting” .
This method of studying Canadian identity on the national level has continued from the late 50’s through the 1980’s. Only in the past fifteen years has the study of Canadian identity been steered back towards an imperial setting instead of an insular national one. However, the debate over the origins of Canadian identity, whether it is more “American”, (imperial) British, or something else continues.
This is exemplified by the debate over the impact of Loyalists and Canadian Loyalism in the creation of a Canadian identity. Some of the works analyzed in this essay argue that Loyalists and Loyalism were important in defining Canadian politics, other works emphasized Loyalism’s impact on Canadian cultural identity, some argued that the imperial connection was vital to Loyalists, and some the (North) American connection, and one source largely downplays the Loyalist impact on Canadian identity altogether.
It is Buckner’s ideas on Canadian identity that I found myself in agreement with. He emphasizes the common rights, institutions, and ethnicity (albeit a vague concept) between Britain and English Canadians and how that made Canada in many ways a British nation during its history as a colony. This is similar to some of the other works except that Buckner emphasizes the influence of the vague idea of shared British ethnicity, at times based on ancestry in the United
Kingdom but also subjectively applied on a broader cultural definition of British values and culture. However, identifying themselves as a British nation, “did not prevent English-Canadians from developing an overlapping sense of North American or Canadian identity” . Before examining the different relevant works it is vital to understand what the phrase “Canadian Loyalism” implies.
This loyalist myth is best displayed in a passage from David Mills’s The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850, which states: “Rather than submit to a successful rebellion they forsook the land of their forefathers—their homes,–their families—in many instances, their friends, and all they hitherto held dear upon earth; and plunged unhesitatingly into the depths of difficulties of a boundless forest, there to teach their children, amidst every species of privation those lessons of patriotism and faithfulness, they had so nobly illustrated in action. Canadian Loyalism is based on allegiance to the Crown and common ties with British institutions, politics, and the constitution. However, it is also argued that involves being linked to a common British (white, Protestant, preferably but not necessarily Anglo-Saxon) race. It was not until the 1980’s that Canadian Loyalism, whether its reality or later rhetoric, came to be seen in most English-Canadian scholarship as actually being a positive part of the formation of a Canadian identity rather than a hindrance to it.
That the imperial identity of Loyalism was not absolute submissiveness to the Crown or oligarchy, but an affirmation and conservative means to preserve rights and institutions associated with Britishness but adapted to the North American scene, though it was likely genuine toryism for some. However, as mentioned before, there is considerable debate and difference between the works critiqued on the full extent and nature of the Loyalist influence on Canada and English Canadians own sense of identity. The oldest work examined in this essay is a book by Wallace Brown and Hereward Senior titled Victorious in Defeat: Loyalists in Canada.
The stated intention of the authors is to, “examine the role of the Loyalists in Canadian history without falling under the spell of the Loyalist myth or Loyalist-phobia. Their story is a crucial part of Canada’s relevant past in its “search for identity. ” The authors argue against the negative Loyalist myth by arguing that loyalists that settled in Canada did not simply identity as British and subservient to a Tory ideal of hierarchy. Instead they argue that Loyalists, “reflected all shades of political opinion”, with Loyalists such as the “Ryersons and Buells among the popular reformers of the period” (1830’s) .
While this work seeks to show that Loyalists were not all mindlessly obedient to toryism and the imperial connection, are they also arguing that Loyalists, Loyalism, or the imperial connection were not important? No and yes. Brown and Senior do demonstrate the impact on politics in Canada that the presence of Loyalists had: such as a need for cooperation with French Canadians leading to an acceptance of diversity in politics, the powerful position Loyalists and their descendants held in government, low levels of republican sentiment, and of course the conventions and procedures borrowed from British parliamentary tradition .
Instead of a setting a single tone of conservative toryism among Loyalists, this work makes the case that the Loyalists contributed to a more diverse Canadian political identity. Further, although they claim the “Loyalist myth,” was woven by the more conservative Loyalists, and “was only the property of those Loyalists who cared to claim it” , loyalty to the Crown and parliamentary principles was something that all Loyalists did share at least somewhat.
Beyond this vague loyalty, however, the identity of “Britishness” among English Canadians is not really mentioned. Brown and Senior conclude with a few ideas that seem a bit of leaps and are not particularly supported in the rest of the text. For example, Brown and Senior indicate Loyalist presence in Canada helped influence a more peaceful western expansion due to Loyalists being persecuted in the past, and Loyalists accept state-enterprise and aid preparing Canadian political culture for socialist trends and welfare .
While conclusions can be expected to include a certain amount of idle speculation, the fact that Brown and Senior argue away from a strong Canadian Loyalism and British connection, and toward a more diverse and liberal national identity seems to put this work in the category of the English-Canadian histories that ignores the imperial setting in favor of a “national” story of identity development. Another work that was published the same year (1984) was able to go even further with the North American development of Canadian identity.
Christopher Moore’s The Loyalists: Revolution, Exile, and Settlement studies just what the title indicates. This work focuses on Loyalist experiences in three parts. During the American Revolution, the second part is focused on the exile of Loyalists, and finally their settlement into Canada. Moore “attempted to place them (loyalists) in the American societies that shaped them and the Canadian ones to which they came and contributed” . This is a strong indication that like Brown and Senior’s work Moore focuses more on the interactions within North America rather than between North America (Canada) and Britain.
Sources such as personal diaries and Loyalist claims, which describe the experiences of the Loyalists, lend additional support to the idea that Moore is aiming to show the diverse nature of the Loyalist experience and is therefore like Brown and Senior showing that Loyalists were “not just” aristocratic Tories. Thus this work seems another swipe at the Loyalist myth. This is further supported by the fact Moore also seems to be supporting the idea of a diverse Loyalism that, “ranged from a rigorous toryism to some vague sense that royal government was hardly so evil as its enemies claimed” .
However, there is a slight but interesting difference between the two works. The last part is separated into Loyalist experiences at New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada. Moore tells of Edward Winslow’s, a Loyalist leader that settled in New Brunswick, who “saw the loyalists’ migration not as a flight into wilderness exile, but as a golden opportunity to build a better New England” Or the loyalists who tried to establish a community in Shelburne, Nova Scotia to make the province uniquely loyalist.
Despite their efforts they were met with limited resources and competition from the already existing port of Halifax and were “forced to accept and adapt to the realities of Nova Scotia” . Thus loyalists had an impact on this region but became Nova Scotians instead of Nova Scotia becoming Loyalist. By arguing the greater impact of local conditions and politics on Loyalists and other Canadians than larger identities Moore provides further evidence that he is of the historiographical school that is moving away from an imperial setting and more toward a North American or local one.
Mark of the trend away from imperial history, though it is not neglected entirely. Moore demonstrates the difference of the impact of loyalists in different regions of Canada and the impact on them it lends that local influence on Canadian identity that Brown and Senior do not use as much. There is also the similarity that even though the role of metropolitan Britain is mentioned somewhat it is mainly only referred to in the context that the, “small, fragile, new colonies of British North America needed imperial assistance, imperial trade, imperial government” .
While interaction with metropolitan Britain is mentioned as little more than a source for aid, Moore asserts that the Loyalists, “had not come to Canada for the future glories of Trafalgar or the British Raj…in 1783 and 1784 Gideon White and Sarah Frost…and fifty thousand others had settled in to make lives for themselves in particular corners of a much smaller empire” .
These passages make it fairly clear that Moore was also not focusing on the link between imperial Britain and Canada, but on the links between the United States and Canada, and even further on cultural and political circumstances within individual provinces. The fact that Moore, and Brown and Senior share so many common ideas gives the impression that there was not much deviance from the idea of neglecting the metropolitan influence and emphasizing the diverse political culture in the debate of Canadian identity.
Instead of arguing simple diversity in the political culture, a work that is published four years later provides a more concrete place for Loyalism in Canadian identity, yet still leaving it negotiable. David Mills’ work The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850 is a study of the public values of (literate) Upper Canadians. It explores how political debates were framed by the term of loyalty and its meaning in Canada from the end of the Revolution through the first half of the nineteenth century.
Mills indicates that this work is limited to studying the literate and elite of those who settled in Upper Canada. However, considering it is a political history, and politics was limited to the elites in Upper Canada’s provincial system anyway, it is not much of an issue. Mills mainly argues that before 1830 the Tories utilized the Loyalist tradition to emphasize the term loyalty as an unquestioned adherence to the imperial connection with England and Tory values, at first.
However, even though the Tory oligarchy framed political debate in this way, “They stood for the maintenance of the old loyalty to British constitutional models, as they understood them, against the misguided policies of colonial ministers—actions which would upset the delicate balance of authority versus liberty and truly threaten the colonial relationship” Though the idea of loyalty to British government is paramount to Tory values, even the Tories recognized that British policies had to be adapted in order to account for the colonial circumstances and relationship.
Like the two previous works, Mills gives due credit to North American circumstances and politics being a part of Canadian identity. Mills provides detailed analysis of many political crises. For example, the 1820’s in Upper Canada saw a debate over the Alien Question. Large amounts of settlers from the United States were entering the province after 1792, and at this point they were generally not considered “late loyalists”. This became a divisive issue especially after the War of 1812 when distrust of American influence was high.
On the political scene a new concept of loyalty developed, while “Tory loyalty was exclusive; it required adherence to the idea of Upper Canada as a special Loyalist bastion governed by a Tory elite… Reform loyalty was assimilative…it was argued that American inhabitants could become loyal subjects through the process of settlement in Upper Canada” . As the Reformer’s definition was adopted the definition of loyalty in Canadian politics was broadened and loyalty became identified with Canadian territory and identity.
But even as the definition changed the concept of loyalty remained central to Canadian politics and as it was shaped in local and regional politics contributed to what it meant to be a loyal Canadian. Another shift occurred during the 1830’s. After the rebellions of 1837 moderate Tories and moderate Reformers appeared. There was a new emphasis on reform within the imperial context characterized by calls for responsible government. Reformers denied that, “loyalty to the imperial connection implied limitations on the rights or political role of any respectable inhabitant of the province, so long as he accepted that loyalty” .
They viewed themselves as entitled to the rights within the British constitution (representation, party, and dissention) that were reserved for all subjects. These moderate reformer ideas were also adopted. Mills shows that Canadian Loyalism was not a static concept, instead it was negotiable, and even if there was disagreement between colony and metropole the imperial connection remained. And yet Mills holds that many Upper Canadians were “consciously Anglo-American” , providing a bit more balance between the imperial connection and the “domestic” influence on Canadian identity.
However, other more recent works focus on how the communities or culture formed in Canada by loyalists shaped, or were shaped by, the Canadian identity. Loyalists and Community in North America, edited by Robert Calhoon, Timothy Barnes, and George Rawlyk, is a collection of chapters written by many different authors, each one being a study on communities of Loyalists. Just one of the common points made is the argument against the idea that Loyalists were merely advocates of the metropolitan philosophy and authority, but also saw themselves as defenders of liberty by protecting their system from the tyranny of the majority.
This work is divided into studies that focus on loyalist communities within patriot communities, in garrison towns during the war, and the final part on Loyalists forming communities in Canada after the Revolution. The latter part focuses on how Loyalists brought with them a legacy to Canadian identity that included knowing of the “fragility of empires” , anti-republicanism, and a conservative loyalist philosophy centered on the concept of loyalty. This is consistent with the idea of Canadian loyalism, that has been established in the historiography so far.
However, this study of community reveals another facet to the Loyalist mission as can be seen in the following quote by Richard Cartwright Jr. : “The distracted condition of my native country, where all government was subverted, where caprice was the only rule and measure of usurped authority, and where all distress was exhibited that power guided by malice can produce, has long made me wish to leave it,…not withstanding the tender feelings of humanity which I suffered at parting from the fondest of parents…it gave me a sensible pleasure to quit a place where discord reigned and all the miseries of anarchy have long prevailed”
The passage reveals a desire to change these territories of British North America to an orderly part of empire as opposed to the state of anarchy the thirteen colonies fell into. This was done not only for their own good but for the good of the empire to ensure “British laws, British connection, and British freedom” . In this way Calhoon shows that the loyalists did have matters of empire and imperial motives on their minds at least part of the time which strengthens the imperial connection and interaction between the metropole and colonial Canadian identity.
A particularly interesting chapter by Jane Errington and George A. Rawlyk. , “Creating a British-American Political Community in Upper Canada”, focuses on the development of political identities and relationships in Upper Canada after the American Revolution. These authors argue against the neoconservative history at the time that claimed the Loyalists who settled in the colony of Upper Canada were determined to hold on to all British values and reject all American ones, essentially adopting a hardline Tory position.
Instead they argue that Loyalists did not view the United States from the perspective of British conservatives, but “with the discriminating eye of British North Americans who had been forced, by the propinquity of their neighbors and the nature of their own population, to recognize fine distinctions in American political and social life” . Instead of rejecting all American ideas they would adopt frontier ideas from American neighbors “in many matters relating to farming, building roads and schools, and a host of other problems from early settlement” .
This makes sense because as the historiography has apparently agreed upon, the Loyalists who left America and shaped Canada wanted to “recreate what they lost in their own old homes—a conservative, deferential, loyal society, especially suited to the particular conditions of the land and its people” The metropolitan British connection with British North America is evident in Errington showing that the “British constitution had given Upper Canada a form of government that, many believed, was far superior to that of the republic” .
This government was seen as balanced, providing due subordination and justice and not prone to tyranny from the Crown or people. At the same time though Canadian politicians had concerns on issues of leveling, political factions/strife. These occurrences were all mirrored in the United States, which is not surprising considering the similar “American” surroundings they face. Upper Canada elite looked to there for what happened, which further shows the similarities between the neighbors and Canada willing to learn and adopt ideas from them.
Political elites in Upper Canada even maintained a Federalist-Loyalist political alliance with their southern partners up until 1815 when Federalist influence declined. Even then, the United States was still viewed by Upper Canadians as their closest neighbors. Taken into consideration alongside Mill’s work, there is a definite improvement in how different factors in Canadian identity are considered in the historiography of loyalism, loyalists, and identity.
Interactions and similarities between the United States and Canada are considered, the imperial connection and influence is clearly justified, and the impact of local circumstances on how these external influences are treated is also shown. The use of the phrase British North Americans should also be noted, while it is used in the other works at times, it is used in the Calhoon book more often. This indicates a greater awareness of the combined British-American and imperial-colonial identity emerging in Canada and it is reflected in more recent histories on the subject.
However, none of the works mentioned up to this point truly took an in-depth look at how Canadian cultural (identity) was developed by domestic and external ideas. An example of a study of Canadian cultural identity and Loyalism is Daniel Coleman’s article “The National Allegory of Fraternity: Loyalist Literature and the Making of Canada’s White British Origins”. Coleman’s essay examines a theme in literature through the 19th and early 20th centuries that contributed to white British masculinity being accepted as the norm in Canadian identity.
He analyzes poems, novels, and other works of fiction presenting an “allegory of fraternity” that indicates the origins of Canada being the United Empire Loyalists, and a shared whiteness that is based on the British officer class’s code of honor. Three works of fiction are analyzed in particular: ‘Major John Richardson’s novel The Canadian Brothers; or, The Prophecy Fulfilled (1840), William Kirby’s book-length verse epic The U. E. A Tale of Upper Canada (1859) and Thomas Raddall’s novel His Majesty’s Yankees (1942) as representative of the widespread use of the fraternal allegory” . Coleman describes the allegory of fraternity as constituting, “a desperate attempt to account for this schism between British colonists and to explain why this brotherly brutality was necessary” . The fratricidal fighting being the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and rebellions of 1837, and explaining why the fighting was necessary is needed because these conflicts were seen as creating the Canadian nation.
This allegory recognizes a family connection between Canada and its southern neighbor to have existed, and the Canadians identify themselves as the brother that remained loyal to the British-American family in the literature. There is also a racial component to the fraternal conflict. The Loyalist discourse refers to “Britishness as a higher-order, spiritually enterprising whiteness and Americanness as a lower-order, materially ambitious and therefore sullied whiteness” The use of war in the literature is to transfer attention from, “from land acquisition to high ideals.
It provides a crucible in which loyalty can be proven, especially through the masculine ideology of honourable self-sacrifice, and it thereby demonstrates that the nation’s progenitors were motivated by the enterprise of the collective good and not by personal gain” . By creating these ideals as a part of Canadian identity in a British-American family, the Loyalist literature is used to justify the violent conflicts that created that separate identity so that after the necessary bloodshed the new “kingdom” can have an identity as a peaceful one.
Besides the political ideas and cultural values of the Loyalists themselves, this work alludes to the lasting legacy of Loyalists and loyalism in cultural sources that contributed to Canadian identity. And since this literature equated proper Canadian fraternity to traits of loyalty and British officers it in turn linked Canadian identity to the identity of Britishness.
Despite Canadian literature borrowing the concept of Britishness as an ideal the “Britishness” of the Canadian has something else as well, “Whereas the English officers operate by protocol and the obedient performance of their duties, the Canadian, empowered by indigenous knowledge of the local topography and unconstrained by how things are done in urbane “society,” acts directly and decisively. ” (16) Canadian’s are indigenized to not be constrained by protocol and have a local “ruggedness”, but at the same time retain the British officer’s concept of fair play to avoid “native barbarism”.
This addition to the British officer ideal grants the new ideal its own Canadians identity. The indigenized influence could be interpreted as a general “frontier” or “North American” identity but the blending with the British officer ideal makes this Canadian identity unique. The combined Canadian identity based on Loyalism revealed in this cultural history grants further support to the British-North American identity established in the other historical works critiqued so far, especially Mills and Calhoon.
With the more chronologically recent works there has been a noticeable trend toward a more clearly established Loyalism based “British-North American” Canadian identity. However, there are always exceptions to the historiographical rule. An essay by Douglas Baer, James Curtis, and Edward Grabb titled “Defining Moments and Recurring Myths: Comparing Canadians and Americans After the American Revolution” is one of these exceptions. This article is mainly a refutation of S. W.
Lipset’s thesis that “the American nation was founded on and still embraces its revolutionary values and ideals, while Canada has always been a society shaped by its initial counter-revolutionary rejection of these same values and ideals” . Lipset claims that the American Revolution produced significant and lasting differences between American and Canadian values, the United States favoring liberal individualism, populist democracy, and equality, while the United Empire Loyalists that shaped Canada favored hierarchy and elitism. The uthors contend that the Loyalists had little effect in creating differences between Canada and the United States and claim that the, “ordinary lives, outlooks, and values” , of Canadians were very similar to Americans during the Revolutionary era and for decades afterward. The essay is well-organized, asking questions such as “what was the extent of toryism? ” and then answering them in the subsequent section. The second section of the essay is devoted to sociodemographic comparisons of Americans, English Canadians, and French Canadians.
The essay includes description of, “class structure and economic background; initial ethnic composition and subsequent sources of immigration, religious influences; urbanization patterns; and political organization and political structure” From this analysis the essay concludes that the Canadians and Americans had more in common culturally, politically, and socially than they had differences in the decades after the Revolution. However, the conclusion is weakened somewhat by the use of secondary literature rather than any primary documents or direct numbers to back up these conclusions.
In fact, the writers of this article rely almost entirely on secondary literature to show how it disagrees with Lipset’s thesis by showing similarities between British North Americans and United States citizens or Loyalists that were different from Lipset’s claims. For example, the article counter Lipset’s assertion that the Loyalists were aristocratic elitists by claiming that most were illiterate and, “ordinary people of modest means (Bell and Tepperman, 1979 47-49, 52-53, Wynn, 1987: 220, 229; Skelton, 1965, Stewart, 1990, Thompson and Randall, 1994 15; MacKinnon, 1986. 7-65; Noel, 1990: 9, Errington, 1994: 5, 14, Upton, 1971: 50-51; Talman, 1946 xxiii-xxvi)” . Of course, the sheer amount of secondary literature used for this one point seems to be a bit of overkill, and could lead one to wonder about these sources. The fact that citations like these appear regularly throughout the essay makes it more jarring to read. The essay also makes some claims that it does not elaborate upon very well. One such claim is that, “Many historians agree that the English-speaking colonists in Canada were “not in any real sense British” but were imbued ith a fundamental “Americanness”” Further, the citing of claims from secondary literature that “Americanness” was the chief feature of Canadians does not disprove the cultural and identity impact of continuing ties with imperial Britain. The phrase “not in any real sense British” is impossible to determine, what does it mean to be British in a “real sense”? The essay does not answer this question. However, I feel that if the Loyalists could identify themselves as such and have a reasonable chance at being recognized as British by the metropolitan government, then they are British in at least that sense.
A reviewer of Phillip Buckner’s earlier work, Canada and the End of Empire draws from this work that he felt, “that the historical relationship between Canada and Britain had practically disappeared from Canadian studies by the time he took it upon himself to stir up interest in the subject with his presidential address to the Canadian Historical Association in 1993” . This also coincided with a trend among imperial historians that shifted towards the study of ‘informal empire’ and away from study of the dominions, like Canada.
The result is a lack of study of the interaction between metropolitan Britain and colonial Canada in recent years. This is an issue that he has noticed in the Oxford History of the British Empire series, a deficiency in the history of Canada in the empire. He also states that if “‘if the Oxford History is to be criticized for downplaying the significance of the Dominions to the Empire, contemporary Canadian (and Australian and New Zealand) historians must accept some responsibility for encouraging them to do so. ” Buckner is of course referring decline in study of the relationship between Canada and Britain in Canadian studies.
Buckner gets his chance to remedy this by editing Canada and the British Empire, from the Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series. It is a collection of contributions from different authors into fourteen chapters, and all in some way address the connection between Canada and the British Empire. The first half of the book is chronologically divided from how British North America first came to be prior to 1783, to its consolidation after the Revolution, to its transformation into the Dominion of Canada, through the “Third Empire”, and until the end of the British
Empire. Other parts of the book focus on British migration into British North America/Canada, French Canadians, aboriginal people, women and the topic of gender in the Empire, how the British, Empire, and Canadian economies, and British and Canadians law. If this book’s aim was to provide a comprehensive view of Canada and its complex relationship with the British Empire, then this was a very inclusive work that is up to the task.
Regardless of the breadth of Canada and the Empire on the topic, this paper is focused on the development of Canadian identity, and whether it was impeded or aided by Loyalists and Canadian Loyalism. Buckner concurs with most of what has been mentioned already in recent historiography on the topic. That the Loyalists, entrenching themselves politically and the rhetoric of loyalty taking hold in Canadian politics in the early nineteenth century had a considerable political and cultural influence on what would become the Canadian identity.
He also supports the idea of English Canadians identifying themselves as British while not precluding other identities as mentioned towards the beginning. However, Buckner emphasizes the migration of people from the British islands from 1815 until 1914, or the second wave of European migration, in order for Canada to have a majority British descended population. Buckner also digs up the issue of ethnic descent being the basis for these new “British-Americans” to be able to demand the same rights, institutions, and self-government as those in metropolitan Britain.
Although Loyalists could also make that same claim and French Canadians had some special rights of self-government reserved, and influx of British immigrants into Canada would certainly aid in to national claims of being part of the greater British family and deserving greater autonomy. In conclusion, the old assertion of the Loyalist myth: that Canadian Loyalism impeded the development of identity clearly no longer applies. Canadian Loyalism is as much a “North American” invention as it is “British”. Where one ends and the other begins though is still unclear.
The more narrowly focused histories on Loyalists, Loyalism, and Canadian identity revealed a greater level of diversity and complexity in Loyalist participation in early English Canadian society and politics. However, with this greater focus the wider imperial aspect of the development of Canadian identity becomes blurred. There is also something to be said for the perspectives provided by cultural and political histories like Coleson and Mills aiding in a better understanding of Loyalists, Loyalism and identity.
Buckner’s Canada and the British Empire is clearly the most thorough of the works presented on just about anything relating to Canada and the Empire. However, as my final reflection I found Calhoon, Barnes, and Rawlyk’s Loyalists and Community in North America extremely useful in studying this topic, at least the chapters that focus on Canadian loyalism. Mainly because they presented local circumstances, the imperial connection, French Canadians, and Loyalists, how they interacted with one another and how this was influenced/influenced Canadian identity.
Phillip Buckner, Canada and the British Empire (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 1. Sarah Stockwell, The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 220 Phillip Buckner, Canada and the British Empire (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 5 David Mills, The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850 (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988), 16-17. Wallace Brown, and Hereward Senior, Victorious in Defeat: Loyalists in Canada. Ontario, Canada: Methuen Publications, 1984) , viii Ibid. , 208 Ibid. , 121 Ibid. , 207 Ibid. , 209 Christopher Moore, The Loyalists: Revolution, Exile, Settlement. (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart Inc. , 1984), 9 Ibid. , 253 Ibid. , 187 Ibid. , 221 Ibid. , 253 Ibid. , 254 David Mills, The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850. (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988), 6 Ibid. , 34-5 Ibid. , 109 Ibid. , 17 Robert Calhoon, Timothy M. Barnes, and George A. Rawlyk, Loyalists and Community in North America. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), 2 Ibid. , 10 Ibid. , 11 Ibid. , 190
Ibid. , 192 Ibid. , 188 Ibid. , 191 Daniel Coleman, “The National Allegory of Fraternity: Loyalist Literature and the Making of Canada’s White British Origins,”. Journal of Canadian Studies 36, no. 3, (Autumn 2001): 131 Ibid. , 133 Ibid. , 138 Ibid. , 139 Douglas Baer, James Curtis, and Edward Grabb “Defining Moments and Recurring Myths: Comparing Canadians and Americans After the American Revolution” (University of Western Ontario, 2001), 2 Ibid. , 1 Ibid. , 14 Ibid. , 9 Ibid. , 10 Lisa Chilton, “Canada and the British Empire: A Review Essay”. The Canadian Historical Review 89, no. 1, (March 2008): 90 Ibid. , 91