BEA CORBETT, "IN KINGSTON, LOYALISTS CAN FALL DOWN DRUNK WITH IMPUNITY," KINGSTON WHIG STANDARD (APRIL 22, 2000).

Copyright Kingston Whig Standard 2000

"Of course she'll be well-

behaved," said Mother. "She's a Loyalist."

Mother was justifying her Sunday lunch invitation to a charming woman she had met at the Red Cross. The lady had returned to Kingston after years away and appeared to know everybody. Angus and Helen Mowat were also invited. Angus came but

Helen had to visit a sick relative. It was Dec. 7, 1941.

We assembled for lunch. Sherry was served, but there was no sign of the charming lady. When she finally appeared, Mother whispered: "She never looks like this at the Red Cross."

Her blond curls piled high, she wore a tight white dress, black hose and red sandals. Angus was fascinated. It became evident she had already been at a party as she giggled and hiccuped through lunch. Father glowered; Mother attempted to retrieve a rocky social situation. Angus remained transfixed.

After coffee, Father held out Angus's greatcoat and said: "Well, it's been very nice having you, and I'm sure, Angus, you'll be glad to see Mrs. W. home."

Next day, Angus told Father what had happened afterwards. He and the lady had progressed unevenly across the park as she clutched his arm to remain upright.

Then a soldier passed by and saluted Maj. Mowat, whose return salute involved dropping Mrs. W.'s arm - and down she fell. Major and private got her up and she was finally deposited by Angus inside her front door.

After this sorry tale, my father said sadly: "In Kingston, if you're Loyalist, you can fall down drunk on the street on Sunday with impunity. If you're not a Loyalist and live here quietly for 30 years, like me, you're looked on as a second-class citizen."

Growing up in Kingston between the two world wars, I often felt that Loyalists, who came in 1784, were the local aristocracy. What is the mystique that has caused them to be regarded as having a monopoly on the best traditions of our heritage and - besides limestone - as being the bedrock on which the city has been built?

One-third of the people in the Thirteen Colonies were opposed to the American Revolution. After 1776, they were treated as traitors, often imprisoned and had their property seized. In the wild aftermath of the revolution, 50,000 left everything and went to the British colonies to the north. Thirty-five thousand settled in the Maritimes, with the rest settling in Quebec, Montreal and what became Upper Canada.

They came from all levels of society and brought their slaves with them. In addition to land grants, they received government aid for the first hard years, but seldom enough to make life comfortable.

To view Upper Canadian Loyalists as a homogeneous entity motivated solely by loyalty to Britain is an over-simplification. Some were, but Chris Moore writes in The Loyalists: "Many of the newcomers to Upper Canada had no strong loyalist or anti-loyalist sentiments. They were attracted simply by the settlement prospects of Upper Canada. These were the largest group...."

As important as why the Loyalists came is how they have been perceived and what they have contributed. Historically, their high profile is due largely to the dramatic impact of their coming: their hardships and their arrival in numbers and in a short period of time. They changed the face of settlement here, and as they became established, the industrious and the able rose to the top and led the way to the creation of Upper Canada in 1791.

In the 19th century, the Loyalists appear to have been in eclipse on the national stage. Too much was going on in building this nation. By the 20th century, a strong, enthusiastic feeling of Canadian nationalism had evolved and the Loyalists re-emerged. They have been seen as a courageous people, a self-appointed aristocracy, opportunistic land-grabbers, the creators and preservers of our cultural heritage, and, today, a vital part of the tourism industry. How do they compare with other groups?

Canada is seen by some as having two founding peoples, the French and the English. The French undoubtedly were a founding people and were the first non-native settlers here.

Citing the English as the second founding people is based on the Loyalists' arrival. But I argue that another ethnic group also played a role in founding this country, a role equal to, and even surpassing, that of the English, locally and nationally. I speak of the Scots.

Scottish emigration to Canada has been steady, continuing and without drama. Scots first came to Canada in the 17th century, when Sir William Alexander was granted land, which he named Nova Scotia, in 1621. The name remained, but the colony foundered.

Beginning in 1720, men from Scotland's Orkney Islands were recruited by the Hudson's Bay Company for service in the west. And we must not forget Simon Fraser's explorations, and Sir Alexander Mackenzie's arrival at the Pacific Ocean "from Canada by land, 1793."

At Quebec in 1759, during the Seven Years War, Lieut. Simon Fraser crossed the St. Lawrence River in the lead boat. Fraser spoke fluent French. When challenged by the sentry, his reply was accepted, and the Highlanders were among the first up the cliffs. They were prominent in the British victory on the Plains of Abraham.

Scots have done well for Kingston. We had three Fathers of Confederation: John A. Macdonald, Alexander Campbell and Oliver Mowat, all Scots. One became Canada's first prime minister. Another prime minister, Alexander Mackenzie, was from Kingston.

And now to education. Kingston's two principal educational institutions were started by Scots. Queen's University was established in 1941 by Presbyterians to train ministers of their denomination. In 1876, during the ministry of Alexander Mackenzie, the Royal Military College was founded following the departure of the British forces from Canada in 1871. From modest beginnings, both institutions have done much for Canada.

For these and other deeds, I argue that the Scots are one of our four founding peoples and are equal to the English and their first arrivals, the United Empire Loyalists.

Again I am reminded of the Loyalist lady crossing the park with Angus Mowat. According to Mowat's son, the Celt and the Loyalist were always at war in him - no rare thing. All my descendants, and my flawless son-in-law, could put "UE" after their names. I am content to come from another founding people.

-Bea Corbett is a Kingston freelance writer.