IT IS MISPLACED TO INTERPRET American Loyalism as synonymous with Tory reaction. Robert M. Calhoon?with The Loyalists in Revolutionary America 1760-1781?played a major role in debunking the "Tory" myth in his analysis of Loyalists of accommodation who called for Anglo-American reconciliation rather than imperial subjugation. Moderate Loyalists shared a continuing faith in not merely British constitutional structures, but perhaps more importandy the commercial and cultural processes of the

more »

... c world. One of the most innovative expositions of the empire s continuing potential is that contained within the diverse essays and treatises of the Reverend William Smith of Philadelphia. Smiths advocacy of reconciliation was articulated in a series of letters, published (under the pseudonym of Cato) in the Pennsylvania Ledger during March and April 1776. These letters were characterised by repeated calls for "reconciliation upon constitutional principles." In "Cato Letters III," the North administration is reprimanded for behaving like a "cruel stepdame" rather than a "fostering parent" in failing to address colonial grievances over taxation and representation ("Cato Letters" 444). Smith recognised that the heavy-handed response to the Boston Tea Party and other colonial protests had only exacerbated the conflict and led to the outbreak of war. He did not, however, believe that this response justified a Patriot agenda of revolution and independence. Maintaining loyalty to the empire and a commitment to peaceful petitioning was seen as answering the interests of both colonists and mother country. Smiths defence of the British Constitution and fear of popular excesses would be echoed by most Loyalists. There would also, however, be more singular factors influencing Smiths Loyalism. By the time he wrote the Cato letters, he was worried that a move towards independence would undermine the economic and cultural prosperity of the colonies. Henry F. May, in The Enlightenment in America, has explained how