Three Peoples, One King: Loyalists, Indians, and Slaves in the Revolutionary South, 1775-1782. By Jim Piecuch. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, c. 2008. Pp. [xiv], 439. $39.95, ISBN 978-1-57003-737-5.)
This review first appeared in for the Journal of Southern History 76, no. 1 (Feb. 2010), 137-139.
Three Peoples, One King: Loyalists, Indians, and Slaves in the Revolutionary South, 1775-1782
Jim Piecuch
Reviewed by Michael A. McDonnell, University of Sydney
The American Revolution as a historical event is too often obscured by founding myths of a new nation that privilege narratives of unity over division, stories of the triumph of good over evil, and memories of a hard-fought victory that end with the overthrow of a tyrannical monarchy and the creation of a new modern democracy. In this mythology, the stories that Jim Piecuch tells in such wonderful detail in Three Peoples, One King: Loyalists, Indians, and Slaves in the Revolutionary South, 1775-1782 have no place, for these are the tales of the thousands of colonists, enslaved Africans, and Native Americans who dared to dream of a different but equally liberating future for themselves and their families. These are the tales of those who ended up on the "losing" side of the War for Independence and who have ever since been consigned to the role of villains in the popular imagination, if they are considered at all. Historians have long tried to complicate these notions, particularly regarding the southern colonies. There, as Piecuch's invaluable work shows, a potentially explosive combination of forces almost very dramatically changed the course of American history. The book's originality lies in its focus on all three major groups that opposed American independence and in its regional approach encompassing South Carolina, Georgia, and East and West Florida. Its deeply researched and compelling argument suggests that only in hindsight could American victory in the South be taken for granted. Indeed, had the British been able to capitalize on the support and coordinate the actions of the region's thousands of Loyalist militiamen, rebellious slaves, and powerful native groups, the southern colonies at least may well have stayed in British hands. And many, if not the majority of the population, would have been quite happy to remain in the empire. Based on an impressive amount of research and presenting a wealth of detail and a wide array of colorful stories, Piecuch's study is convincing. At the same time, one can only wish that Piecuch had pushed his story further. Though the dust jacket claims a "synthetic approach," Piecuch organizes his densely detailed study into sections (focusing on Loyalists, African Americans, or Native Americans; South Carolina, Georgia, or the Floridas) that too often divide rather than integrate the narrative. Thus we get no sense of whether Loyalists acted in concert with other groups or were even keen to do so. Nor do we get any sense of how events elsewhere in the colonies may have affected Loyalist activities. Indeed, we remain strangely distant from the disaffected, despite the detailed stories. In part this may be a result of Piecuch's interest in how these groups fit in with British military strategy. But the distance also stems from an over reliance on Whig or British sources, rather than on sources from Loyalists themselves. We get little sense of why Loyalists chose to act, or failed to act, when they did. This issue is more glaring when it comes to Native American activity, especially considering the wonderful new works in Native American history that would have helped fill the gaps left by a lack of primary sources. Moreover, the book also ends when Whigs rather than Loyalists were happy for it to end - at the conclusion of the war. But for many émigrés, runaway slaves, and Native Americans, this was hardly the end of their story. Finally, and perhaps most important, this reliance on Whig sources often forces Piecuch to cast the war in much the same way that ardent Patriots and even British officials sometimes saw it - as a clear conflict between "them" and "us," or Patriot versus Tory. Yet as a number of excellent studies have recently shown, and as Piecuch's own stories often reveal, there were many shades of gray between loyalism and patriotism, and the majority of Americans in most places simply wanted to keep their heads down and out of the conflict. Others sought freedom from local elites. Still others, of course, like Cherokee warriors defending territory or enslaved Africans seeking liberty, would have contested any claims to their loyalties. Indeed, in the end Three Peoples, One King is invaluable for showing that leaders on neither side of the conflict were particularly successful in drumming up support for their respective causes. Piecuch has thus made a substantial contribution to the literature of the Revolution in the South. It is now up to others to grapple with the implications of his findings and create a new story of the Revolution that can contain these many contradictions.
< Back to book reviews listing