Egerton Ryerson opens his preface with a striking analogy: as no Indian pen has recorded the history of America's aborigines, so the Loyalists' story has been written only by their enemies. This framing sets the tone for a work that is explicitly corrective, aiming to supply what Ryerson calls 'the other side of the story.' He announces his method early: instead of opposing assertion with assertion, he will offer 'the records and documents of the actors themselves, and in their own words.' The result is a history that is, by his own admission, largely documentary rather than a popular narrative.

A Documentary Method, Not a Narrative

Ryerson states plainly that his history is 'to a large extent, documentary, instead of being a mere popular narrative.' The excerpts bear this out: the text includes detailed accounts of military campaigns, such as Bradstreet's destruction of Fort Frontenac and the capture of Fort du Quesne, with citations like '[244]' and '[245]' indicating reliance on primary sources. Ryerson does not simply tell the story; he assembles proclamations, messages, and records, following what he calls 'the example of some of the best historians and biographers.' Readers should expect a work built on quoted material rather than continuous prose.

Correcting a Perceived Historical Imbalance

Ryerson's preface argues that American historians have 'never tired in eulogizing Americans and everything American, and deprecating everything English.' He positions his work as a vindication of the Loyalists, whom he describes as 'the losing party' whose history has been 'strangely misrepresented.' The catalog subjects list 'American loyalists' and 'United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783,' but the excerpts show Ryerson's focus extends to earlier conflicts, including the French and Indian War. His corrective aim is evident in his claim that 'the many fictions of American writers will be found corrected and exposed' by the authorities he presents.

A Provincial and Imperial Lens

Ryerson repeatedly emphasizes the role of provincial troops in British victories, noting that in expeditions against Fort Frontenac, Niagara, and Quebec, 'the provincial troops rendered essential service.' He also highlights the motivations of colonies like Massachusetts, which 'had for many years been set upon the conquest of Canada, both for her own security.' This dual focus—on both imperial strategy and colonial contribution—reflects Ryerson's broader argument that the Loyalists were not traitors but adherents to 'the unity of the British Empire.' The excerpts do not cover the Revolutionary period itself, so readers must infer how this lens applies to the later conflict.

Ryerson's preface reveals a historian who began his research more than twenty-five years before publication and who sees his work as an 'untrodden path.' Readers should approach this volume as a compilation of primary sources framed by a clear partisan purpose. The documentary style means that the narrative emerges through the accumulation of quoted materials rather than through Ryerson's own prose. Those interested in Loyalist historiography or the use of evidence in nineteenth-century historical writing will find this a revealing example.