AP U.S. History: Period 3 (1754–1800) (Drill 6)

Question 1. Seabury's use of the phrase 'gnawed to death by rats and vermin' to describe rule by colonial committees most directly serves to

• A) warn that colonial resistance movements were being secretly directed by foreign enemies of the British Empire
• B) suggest that the Continental Congress lacked the constitutional authority to represent colonial interests
• C) portray the leaders of colonial resistance as lowly and dangerous, unfit to govern compared to legitimate royal authority ✓
• D) argue that colonial militias were too poorly organized to mount an effective military resistance against British forces within Seabury's argument

Explanation: Choice C is correct. Seabury's animal metaphor deliberately inverts the typical patriot language of liberty and tyranny. By contrasting a 'King' (a lion) with 'rats and vermin' (committee-men), he portrays colonial resistance leaders as contemptible and dangerous upstarts, unworthy of the authority they have seized, a direct rhetorical attack on their legitimacy. Choice A is incorrect. Seabury makes no claim about foreign direction of colonial resistance. His attack is on the colonial committee-men themselves, not on hidden foreign agents behind them. Choice B is incorrect. While Seabury does question the authority of colonial resistance bodies, this specific metaphor is about the character and quality of the leaders, not a constitutional argument about the Congress's legal standing. Choice D is incorrect. Seabury does raise the weakness of colonial militias later in the passage, but the 'rats and vermin' metaphor is specifically attacking the character of the resistance leaders, not the military capacity of colonial forces.

Question 2. Which of the following best describes the central argument Seabury makes in this passage?

• A) that Parliament's right to tax the colonies is constitutionally sound and colonists have a legal obligation to comply
• B) that colonial resistance to British authority is both illegitimate and practically doomed to fail ✓
• C) that the colonial militia system must be professionalized before Americans can responsibly seek independence
• D) that moderate colonists should appeal directly to the King to resolve their grievances rather than working through Parliament

Explanation: Choice B is correct. Seabury makes two interlocking arguments: first, that colonial resistance leaders are illegitimate ('lawless committee-men'); second, that the colonies lack the military capacity to succeed ('undisciplined militia,' no navy, no money). Together, these form a comprehensive case that resistance is both wrong and futile. Choice A is incorrect. Seabury explicitly sets aside the taxation argument ('Waiving that point'), suggesting his central argument is not about constitutional taxation rights but about the practical and moral dangers of resistance. Choice C is incorrect. Seabury is not calling for military reform as a precondition for independence; he is arguing against independence and resistance altogether. His mention of military weakness is a warning, not a reform proposal. Choice D is incorrect. While Seabury implicitly prefers royal authority to colonial committees, he does not specifically advocate for direct petitions to the King. His argument is a warning against proceeding with resistance, not a detailed alternative strategy.

Question 3. Seabury's argument that colonial resistance leaders are 'lawless committee-men' reflects which of the following tensions in colonial America during the 1770s?

• A) the conflict between established colonial elites who feared popular democracy and radical patriots who sought to broaden political participation ✓
• B) the disagreement between Anglican and Congregationalist clergy over whether Christian principles required loyalty to the Crown
• C) the divide between coastal merchants who depended on British trade and inland farmers who resented British commercial regulations
• D) the tension between colonists who believed Parliament had exceeded its constitutional authority and those who accepted parliamentary sovereignty

Explanation: Choice A is correct. Seabury's contempt for 'committee-men', the locally organized bodies that enforced boycotts and coordinated resistance, reflects a Loyalist anxiety about popular politics displacing legitimate authority. Many Loyalists, particularly among the colonial elite and Anglican clergy, feared that resistance movements were empowering social inferiors and undermining the established order. Choice B is incorrect. While Seabury was an Anglican minister and Anglican clergy did tend toward Loyalism, his argument in this passage is political, not theological. He does not frame the debate as a religious conflict between denominations. Choice C is incorrect. The merchant-farmer divide was a real tension in colonial society, but Seabury's attack on committee-men is about political legitimacy, not commercial interests or trade policy. Choice D is incorrect. This is the fundamental constitutional debate, but Seabury explicitly sets it aside ('Waiving that point') and focuses instead on practical and social arguments against resistance.

Question 4. A historian studying the limits of Seabury's perspective as a historical source would most likely note that

• A) his pamphlet was suppressed by British authorities, which prevented it from reaching the colonial audience he intended to persuade
• B) as an Anglican minister dependent on the established church hierarchy, Seabury had strong institutional reasons to support Crown authority that shaped his argument ✓
• C) Seabury's military assessment of colonial weakness proved entirely inaccurate, which undermines the reliability of his political judgments
• D) his use of inflammatory language indicates he was writing primarily for a British rather than a colonial audience, limiting the document's value for understanding colonial opinion

Explanation: Choice B is correct. Historians analyzing sourcing and situation would immediately identify Seabury's position as an Anglican minister as a significant factor shaping his perspective. Anglican clergy in the colonies were directly tied to the Crown through the church hierarchy, and their professional and institutional interests aligned closely with maintaining British authority, giving Seabury strong personal reasons to oppose colonial resistance beyond purely philosophical ones. Choice A is incorrect. Seabury's pamphlets were not suppressed by British authorities; they were widely read and were specifically written to persuade colonial audiences to remain loyal. They were actually suppressed by patriot groups, not the Crown. Choice C is incorrect. While Seabury's military assessment did prove wrong, historians do not dismiss sources simply because their predictions turned out to be incorrect. The inaccuracy of a prediction does not invalidate a source's value for understanding the beliefs and arguments of the period. Choice D is incorrect. Seabury was explicitly writing for a colonial audience to persuade them against resistance, not for British readers. The pamphlet's tone and content, including its appeal to colonists' self-interest, confirm a colonial target audience.

Question 5. The Loyalist position represented by Seabury most directly contributed to which of the following broader developments during and after the American Revolution?

• A) the passage of the Olive Branch Petition by the Continental Congress, which represented a last attempt to seek reconciliation with the Crown in this period
• B) the emergence of a strong Federalist movement after the Revolution that sought closer commercial and diplomatic ties with Britain
• C) the British government's decision to pursue a strategy of reconciliation rather than military conquest in the early phases of the war
• D) the mass migration of approximately 60,000 to 80,000 Loyalists out of the United States to Canada, Britain, and the Caribbean following the Revolution ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. The Loyalist community represented by Seabury faced severe social, legal, and physical persecution during and after the Revolution. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 included provisions for Loyalists, but these were largely ignored. The result was a mass exodus, historians estimate 60,000–80,000 Loyalists left the new United States, many resettling in British Canada, Britain itself, or the Caribbean. Choice C is incorrect. British military strategy was shaped by professional military commanders and the ministry in London, not primarily by Loyalist arguments. The British initially did pursue a strategy with elements of reconciliation (Howe's approach in 1776–1777), but this was not directly caused by the Loyalist position. Choice A is incorrect. The Olive Branch Petition was sent in July 1775, the same year Seabury's pamphlet appeared and before the full escalation of conflict; it preceded, rather than resulted from, the development of a mature Loyalist political movement. Choice B is incorrect. While Federalists did favor commercial ties with Britain, the Federalist movement emerged from the constitutional debates of the 1780s and different intellectual traditions than Loyalism. Connecting Loyalism directly to Federalism oversimplifies both movements.