TEXT E Some recent historians
have argued that life in the British colonies in America from approximately 1763
to 1789 was marked by internal conflicts among colonists. Inheritors of some of
the viewpoints of early twentieth century Progressive historians such as Beard
and Becker, these recent historians have put forward arguments that deserve
evaluation. The kind of conflict most emphasized by these historians is class
conflict. Yet with the Revolutionary War dominating these years, how does one
distinguish class conflict within that larger conflict Certainly not by the
side a person supported. Although many of these historians have accepted the
earlier assumption that Loyalists represented an upper class, new evidence
indicates that Loyalists, like rebels, were drawn from all socioeconomic class.
(It is nonetheless probably true that a larger percentage of the well-to-do
joined the Loyalists than joined the rebels.). Looking at the rebels side, we
find little evidence for the contention that lower-class rebels were in conflict
with upper-class rebels. Indeed, the war effort against Britain tended to
suppress class conflicts. Where it did not, the disputing rebels of one or
another class usually became Loyalists. Loyalism thus operated as a safety valve
to remove socioeconomic discontent that existed among the rebels. Disputes
occurred, of course, among those who remained on the rebel side, but the
extraordinary social mobility of eighteenth—century American society (with the
obvious exception of slaves) usually prevented such disputes from hardening
along class lines. Social structure was in fact so fluid—though recent
statistics suggest a narrowing of economic opportunity as the latter half of the
century progressed—that to talk about social classes at all requires’ the use of
loose economic categories such as rich, poor, and middle class, or
eighteenth-century designations like" the better sort." Despite these vague
categories one should not claim unequivocally that hostility between
recognizable classes cannot be legitimately observed. Outside of New York,
however, there were very few instances of openly expressed class
antagonism. Having said this, however, one must add that there
is much evidence to support the further claim of recent historians that
sectional conflicts were common between 1763 and 1789. The" Paxton Boys"
incident and the Regulator movement are representative examples of the
widespread, and justified, discontent of western settlers against colonial or
state governments dominated by eastern interests. Although undertones of class
conflict existed beneath such hostility, the opposition was primarily
geographical. Sectional conflict-- which also existed between North and
South—deserves further investigation. In summary, historians
must be careful about the kind of conflict they emphasize in eighteenth-century
American. Yet those who stress the achievement of a general consensus among the
colonists cannot fully understand the consensus without understanding the
conflicts that had to be overcome or repressed in order to reach it. According to the passage, Loyalism during the American Revolutionary War served the function of______
A.eliminating the disputes that existed among those colonists who supported the rebel cause B.drawing upper, as opposed to lower, socioeconomic classes away from the rebel cause C.tolerating the kinds of socioeconomic discontent that were not allowed to exist on the rebel side D.absorbing members of socioeconomic groups on the rebel side who felt themselves in contention with members of other socioeconomic groups