Seriously though. The colonies were in a state of Rebellion. They were “Insurgents” if you will. The Loyalists were the British Nationalists (i.e. Tories) who remained loyal to the crown. You might approach it from the perspective of loyalty, honor, and duty to the rightful monarch while the Patriots led a bloody rebellion that was treasonous and disrupted the peace.

(Playing Devil’s Advocate of Course)

I would probably begin by arguing the benefits of remaining a loyal subject such as protection of the military vs. the alternative of being vulnerable to attack from other countries. I would point out the deep traditions, family ties, the role honor plays regarding your family name and contrast this to the scary unknowns being lauded by the patriots. Point out how they have no idea where such treasonous action will lead and how ludicrous it would be to challenge the military and naval might of the greatest army on earth. Accuse all of the promises the patriots make of being hollow.

Appeal to your fellow countrymen and ask if they could really take up arms and kill their own countrymen, perhaps their own brethren?

.

The best army and navy in the world protect the colonists. They have to expect to pay something for that.

John Adams and the other Boston rabble rousers are just right wing zealots without any practical ideas about running a government. They’re just cheapskates who want something (protection, government) for nothing.

The stamp and tea taxes are trivial. Just wait. If you colonists make your own government, I’ll bet in no time it’ll tax every penny you make and then waste most of that money on useless foreign wars.

All you colonists are Englishmen. You owe a duty to king and country.

And, of course, in THOSE days, the king rules by devine right. God has made him king. To reject him is to reject God.