The controversy of opinions regarding the American Revolution is due to different priorities and values promoted by the warring parties. From the standpoint of a colonial politician as a representative of the intelligentsia, opposition to revolutionary ideas was a natural phenomenon. These citizens, who were part of the Loyalist group, did not seek to resist the British Crown, which was natural in the context of the King’s total domination on a global scale. According to Corbett et al. (2014), politicians who considered themselves to be loyalists did not strive for the fragmentation of the country and wanted security. This desire was natural, including the fact that their authority and status allowed many opponents of the American Revolution to express their ideas publicly. As Corbett et al. (2014) note, maintaining the dominance of the British King would provide support for slavery in the south of the country, thereby preserving the assets of many American politicians. Therefore, opposition to the supporters of the revolution was a logical decision from the perspective of the American intelligentsia.
For colonial politicians, the situation was compounded by the fact that the ideas of democracy threatened authorities’ positions at the state level. Corbett et al. (2014) remark that the prospect of the British Crown victory did not suit the Loyalist movement largely for practical reasons, in particular, the risk of losing their prestigious posts. This, in turn, was fraught with the coming to power of inexperienced and poorly educated politicians who could worsen the country’s economic situation and its position in the international arena. Therefore, countering revolutionary ideas was a natural step to preserve financial institutions and the established order of control over all regions of the country.
Reference
Corbett, P. S., Janseen, V., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T., & Vickery, P. (2014). U.S. history. XanEdu Publishing.