The loyalists in the American Revolution

Preface

The formation of the Tory or Loyalist party in the American Revolution ; its persecution by the Whigs during a long and fratricidal war, and the banishment or death of over one hundred thousand of these most conservative and respectable Americans is a tragedy but rarely paralleled in the history of the world. The consequences of their banishment are not so easily seen as were the results of the expulsion of the Moors from Spain or the exile of the Huguenots from France, but that there were penalties and, perhaps, rewards consequent upon their removal is a conclusion hardly to be denied. In the case of the Moors and of the Huguenots the loss to their abandoned fatherland was economic and tangible, but in the case of the Loyalists the speculations of the historian are made more dangerous, because the probable political and social results are of so much subtler a nature. We may only venture the suggestion that the youthful errors of

* the American republic in the matters of finance, diplomacy and politics might have been in part corrected by the presence of that conservative element which had either been driven into exile, or, if per-

* mitted to remain, was long deprived of political and

vii

VI 11

PREFACE.

social influence, because of an unremitting intolerance. Whatever may have been the result of their elimination, however, the story of the origin and evolution of the party can lose none of its dramatic interest.

In the preparation of this work on the Loyalists there was a temptation to go over the usual ground of a history of the Revolution, and, doubtless, the dramatic interest could have been attained only by so doing ; but such a treatment would have greatly increased the volume of this work, and would have buried the real contributions to our knowledge of the American Revolution in a mass of well-known facts concerning the campaigns and historic personages. Except, therefore, in chapters one, two, four and five, there is a departure from the regular treatment of the logical growth of the Revolution. In those chapters the activity of the Loyalists can be best understood in the regular setting of the revolutionary history. The remaining chapters treat of matters necessary for an understanding of the Revolution, but hitherto, for the most part, neglected, and in many cases inaccessible.

The material out of which the work has been constructed has been gathered in the main from original sources. The laws of each of the thirteen colonies during the whole period of the Revolution have been carefully examined. The Charlemagne Tower collection of laws in the Pennsylvania Historical Society Library, supplemented

PREFACE.

IX by that of the New York Bar Association, made a complete inspection of the laws possible. The “ Transcript of the Manuscript Books and Papers of the Commission of Enquiry into the Losses and Services of the American Loyalists, etc.,” recently undertaken at the expense of the Lenox Library of New York, has made it possible to learn whether the laws were really carried out in all their severity. The public records of the original states, so far as they have been published, have also greatly aided in this verification. In addition to consulting the newspapers of the time to establish definite facts, I have made a thorough examination of the files of Rivingtori s Gazette , the greatest Loyal newspaper, from 1774 until the close of the war. The letters and journals of the Loyalists such as Curwen, Van Schaack, John Murray and Hutchinson, and the pamphlets of Galloway and others have been valuable sources for their political arguments and sentiments. Mr. Flick’s “ Loyalism in New York,” gives a bibliographical note, which, supplemented by that in Winsor’s “ Narrative and Critical History of America,” in the article on the Loyalists, renders it unnecessary to include a bibliography in this book.

Chapter I. The “sons Of Despotism.”

In the early days of the American Revolution, when the companies of patriots were rallying from every part of the country to repel the British, a regiment of militia, coming up from the south, crossed the James river at the little town of Richmond in Virginia.1 While they were passing through the town, a shoemaker stood in his door and cried : “ Hurrah for King George.” No one took any notice of him ; but after halting in a wood, a little distance beyond, the soldiers were cooking and eating some fish, when the shoemaker came to them and began again to hurrah for King George. When the commanding officer and his aids mounted and were starting on, the shoemaker still followed, hurrahing for King George. Thereupon the officer ordered the pertinacious Tory to be taken back to the river and “ ducked.” The soldiers brought a long rope which they tied, about the middle, around the shoemaker’s waist, and seesawed him backward and forward in the stream until they had him nearly drowned ; but every time he got his head above water he would cry for

1 “State Records of N. C.,” Vol. XL, p. 835.

I

King George. The officer finally ordered him to be tarred and feathered. A feather-bed was taken from the shoemaker’s own house, where his wife and four daughters were crying and beseeching the father to hold his tongue ; but still he would not. The soldiers tore the bed open, knocked th top out of a tar barrel, and plunged the king-worshipper in headlong. He was then drawn out by the heels and rolled in the feathers until he was a sight ; but still he would hurrah for King George. The officer, now thoroughly aroused, ordered the fellow to be drummed out of town with the warning that if he plagued him any more he would have him shot. The sentence was executed and the soldiers saw no more of the shoemaker.

There was a ludicrous element in the shoemaker’s obstinate loyalty, but in a more dignified character the same determined allegiance could have been found in the hearts of thousands of Americans in the early days of the Revolution. With these loyal subjects of the British king, Samuel Adams and John Adams had to contend when they set about to arouse America to rebellion and final inde*- pendence. The great majority of men could be regarded as indifferent, ready to stampede and- rush along with the successful party ; yet, even among the masses, this traditional love of kingship had to be reckoned with and combated, Tseydty w^s the normal condition, the state that^^xisi£4,and did exist; an31f was EhTWh^s^r^r ^the^ J^atriat^ as they

THE SONS OF DESPOTISM.

j called themselves, — who must do the converting,

I the changing of men^apimons^ j of things, which the revolutionists believed necessary J far their own and their country’s welfare.

It is only when we realize this truth that we can see the folly of John Adams’ theory of the creation of the Loyalist Party. He failed to understand that it was his party that was created and not the Loyalist party. He declared that the British Government excited hopes and fears, avarice and ambition in the breasts of those whose support they desired. They were promised honor, glory, wealth and power in return for their favor. Their antagonism was threatened with disgrace, ruin, poverty and contempt. The menace included even torture and death. For ten years, Adams asserted, “ this pious, moral system was pursued with steady and invariable perseverance.” In that decade, they “ formed and organized, and drilled and disciplined a party favorable to Great Britain.” In fact, he concluded, “ they seduced and deluded nearly one third of the people of the colonies.”1

Had Adams spoken only of the influential Americans whose loyalty England tried to retain when the troubled times came, he would have shown a better grasp of the true state of affairs. In respect to them, there was a remarkable monotony of opinion. Many contemporaries of that intolerant decade before the Revolution believed that the British tried “ brazing 1 John Adams, “Works,” Vol. X., 193.

THE LOYALISTS.

England and America together by the golden solder of corruption.” 1 In the petty court of some colonial governor the gift of office and contingent j station effected the same transformation of political sympathy as in the greater court in London. “ A young man is inflamed with the love of his country,” wrote an English satirist. “ Liberty charms him. He speaks, writes and drinks for her. He searches records, draws remonstrances, fears prerogative. A secretary of the treasury waits on him in the evening. He appears next morning at a ministers’ levee. He goes to court, is captivated by the King’s affability, moves an address, drops a censure on the liberty of the press, kisses hands for a place, . . . votes against Magna Charta, builds a house in town, lays his farm into pleasure grounds . . . pays nobody, games, is undone, asks a reversion for three lives, is refused, finds the constitution in danger and becomes a patriot once more.” 2 Not all of the crown officers in America deserved this cynical sketch, but the type was well represented. The “ herd of worthless parasites ” was too often sent to America “to fatten on a larger field.” Besides the mere place-men there were the dignified and worthy gentlemen who held office by virtue of a wise selection. These officers good and bad were the backbone of the Tory party in America. Hardly to be distinguished from the

1 “The Remembrancer,” Part III., 46.

2 The Spectator, Sunday, January 19, 1772. Quoted by Trevelyan.

ir official class were the clergy of the Established Church, who were also dependenMor their livings upon the British GovernmenbsfThe officers and clergy received the support of the*** landowners and the substantial business men, the men who were satisfied with the existing order of things. The aristocracy of culture, of dignified professions and callings, of official rank and hereditary wealth was in a large measure found in the Tory partyj^The reports that have come down to us of their ceremonious dress reveal the elegance which envy chose to regard as the reward of their servility. The description glows with the words but not the sanction of Enobarbus. One wore broad gold lace about the rim of his hat, and his cloak glittered with laces still broader. He set up a chariot and pair and constantly traveled in it.1 Green and gold and purple and gold was the daily wear of a certain wealthy Toiy merchant. The Governor of Rhode Island would wear no wig unless made in England and of pattern and j»ze worn by the speaker in the House of Commo«C|p5uch worthy and un-

I worthy men of high social position were the leaders of the earliest opposition to the rising rebellion ; but, it is to be remembered, they only strove to keep things as they were. Supporting them was i the natural conservatism of all prosperous menj The men who had abilities, which could not b€

1 Tyler, “ Literary History of the American Revolution, ” I., 358.

THE LOYALISTS.

recognized under the existing regime, were they who were striving to bring about a change- — a revolution.

It is plain that the political action of the wellto-do men would be conservative. Were they officers, they pushed stubbornly ahead in the execution of orders from England ; were they merchants, they trusted in King George and let rebellion fry^ Now and then the unbridled action of the mob aroused them for a moment. When, in 1765, a crowd surrounded the elegant house of the Massachusetts customs’ officer, tore down his fences, broke his windows, and at last forced the doors, destroying his furniture, stealing his money, scattering his books and papers, and drinking the wines in his cellar to drunkenness — then for the moment the Tories shuddered at the power of the enraged democracy.1 Indeed, a prominent Tory, remarking that his party had been censured for remissness in not having exerted themselves sufficiently in the early period, replied, that the truth of the case was that they saw and shuddered at the gathering storm, but durst not attempt to dispel it lest it should burst on their own heads.2 They received many intimations that their interference would not be tolerated. Incidents such as that related by James Murray were common. When, one evil day, a

1 “Letters of James Murray, Loyalist,” p. 137.

2 “ Massachusettensis ” in Rivingtori1 s Gazette , December 29, 1774. Copied from Massachusetts Gazette.

THE SONS OF DESPOTISM.

loyal friend got into trouble, Mr. Murray went into court to go bail for him, and the displeased crowd hissed him. As he was leaving the room, his wig was pulled off, and his “ pate clean-shaved by time ” was left exposed. While he was led away in dismay, the mob kept “ nibbling ” at his heels and trying to trip him. With John Gilpin, he might have said that his hat and wig would soon be there, for they were upon the road. Behind him his disheveled wig was borne upon a staff by an insulting mob.1

As a result of such terrorizing, it is true that, during the troubled years that preceded 1773, they preserved for the most part an arrogant silence toward the argument of the opposition. Among themselves they dogmatically asserted that the Stamp Act was but a spur to American industry, but such opinions were not for general circulation. They left to Parliament the task of actively combating the colonial theories. They fancied that the British lion was only playing with the colonial mouse and could stop all its antics at will. The Boston Tea Party, and the events which immediately preceded and followed it brought them to a sense of the progress that revolution had made.

That event had not been unannounced by the course of colonial affairs. Boston, under the lead of Samuel Adams, had early taken a decided stand 1 See “James Murray, Loyalist,” p. 161.

THE LOYALISTS.

against the Townshend measures.1 Adams’ Addresses to the Ministry, his petition to the king, and his circular letter to the legislatures of the other colonies had been adopted by the Massachusetts Assembly, and that Assembly for its pains had been prorogued by Governor Bernard. The circular letters urged that no taxes be levied except by the colonial legislatures. The success of the letters was almost universal. Merchants, the Sons of Liberty, agreed not to import the taxed goods, and the Daughters of Liberty promised that they would wear homespun and would not drink tea. The legislative bodies of America were threatened with suspension, and the Massachusetts Assembly, when it was called together and had refused to rescind, was dissolved by Governor Bernard. Then Gage was ordered to Boston, and ninety-six Massachusetts towns sent delegates to Faneuil Hall to decide how to receive him. Two regiments of his force arrived and were compelled to hire barracks.’ Then followed the winter of discontent and, in the spring,

1 In 1767, Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced measures to tax America in the House of Commons. Leading Americans had distinguished between external and internal duties. Townshend resorted to port duties on wine, oil, and fruits, glass, paper, lead colors and tea. The revenue was to be used to pay a fixed salary to royal governors. The crown was to create a civil list and grant salaries and pensions at will. A Board of Revenue Commissioners was appointed for Boston. General writs of assistance were legalized. The New York Assembly was suspended from legislative functions, until it complied with instructions regarding the supplies for the army.

THE SONS OF DESPOTISM.

the Boston Massacre, with the resulting removal of the two regiments. Meanwhile all the obnoxious acts were repealed except the tea duty ; Bernard had been recalled and Hutchinson made governor. There was nothing now to fight for except a principle. Then it was that the difference between Whig

I and Tory political philosophy became defined.

Will not posterity be amazed, cried a Tory writer, when they are told that the present distraction took /its rise from a three-penny duty on tea? Will they not call it a most unaccountable frenzy and more disgraceful to the annals of America than that of witchcraft ? 1 Besides, he urged, there is nothing new in the recent assertion of the taxing power. It is not only impracticable for America to send members to Parliament, but there is no principle lost if we do not.

As we can more plainly see to-day, the principle, “ No taxation without representation ” was not violated as it was understood and practiced by Englishmen ; but as understood and practiced in colonial affairs it was violated. America had so far outstripped England in political evolution, that neither Englishmen nor men recently immigrated from England could understand American political ideals. To the people of England, representative government meant the representation of the classes of the community.2 Representation according to

1 “ Massachusettensis, ” December 12, 1774.

2 Charming, “ History of the United States, 1765-1865.”

IO

THE LOYALISTS.

population was a new idea born of colonial conditions. £jVhen the Americans objected to taxation without representation the English answered that the colonies were represented, because the merchants interested in colonial trade were represented &s a class in the House of Commons^ When the colonist used the phrase “ no taxation without representation,” he meant that taxes ought to be levied only by a legislative body in which was seated a ; person known and voted for by the person taxed. An Englishmen interpreted the phrase, “ no taxation except that voted by the House of Commons.” The mode of election to that house, and the interests of the persons composing it, were not considered. If a Loyalist understood the American doctrine, he only conceded that reform was necessary in England. He was opposed to nullification, and wished to harmonize, not to disrupt, the empire.

Beyond the question of constitutional law was the question of expediency. The Whig held that the claim of the right to tax was fraught with too much danger to be admitted even if it were constitutional. A Parliament that could lay a tax of three pence on a pound of tea could raise the tax to a guinea. The Tory asked if that political danger really existed. He pointed to the fallacy of contesting the use of power simply because of the possibility of abuse. Parliament was subject to the limitations of conscience and of public opinion. The instincts of the English race would prevent

THE SONS OF DESPOTISM.

1 1

oppression. American interests had many powerful friends in Parliament, and they would defend America from injustice. Chatham, who was not so sure how many contemporaries he could get to join him in defending American doctrines with their blood, asserted that among the dead he could raise up an host innumerable,1 and he might prophetically have promised as great a host in the generations of Englishmen that were to come.

It was upon this argument of expediency and probability that the American Loyalist placed the stress, and herein lay the chief difference between the English ^nd American supporters of the British Ministry^ The English Tory denied all colonial pretensions, while the moderate American Tory granted that things were not as they should be but maintained

Ithat the wrong did not justify the bitterness of the opposition. /

While the Americans were possessed of ideas such as these, the King had hit upon an ingenious ruse. He would make English tea cheaper in America than foreign tea, and then, though the duty of three pence on a pound could be retained, Americans would buy English tea for mere economy’s sake. The East India Company was to be recompensed, and the loss to the British Government was the price of corrupting America. “ The British Ministry,” said Franklin, “ have no idea that any people can act from any other principle but that of interest, 1 Gordon, *' American War,” Vol. IV., p. 444.

V

1 2 THE L 0 YALISTS.

and they believe that three pence in a pound of tea, of which one does perhaps drink ten pounds in a year is sufficient to overcome all the patriotism of an American.”1 In the autumn of 1773, ships loaded with tea set out for Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston, where agents had been appointed to receive the seductive cargo.

The storm of indignation that greeted the news of this proposed raid on Whig principles aroused the Tories to the necessity of defending their position. Rivington, a printer of whom we shall hear more, gave a page of the New York Gazette to the Tory writer who signed himself “ Poplicola.” This “ worthy Latin derivative ” tried to show the inhabitants of New York that their grievances were imaginary, trumped up by demagogues, and that there could be no harm in allowing the East India Company to land their teas in America. They might bring tea to Americans, but they could not make them drink. “A Farmer” endeavored in a long argument to show that it would pay the Whigs to yield now when Parliament had given them a hole to crawl out of. He pointed out that there was no profit in carrying the struggle further.2 Tea was cheaper than before the tax was laid, and the idea was ridiculed that, in buying the tea, America’s money would be taken without her consent. No man was obliged to buy, and, when he did buy, he |

1 Franklin’s '‘Works,” Biglow Ed., V., 147.

2 Rivington' s Gazette , December 2, 1773- consented to pay the duty, and so there could be no duty tKereon if no man purchased it. The heated controversy went on in every new issue of the Gazette , where both parties had ready access.1 “ An Old Prophet” offered to answer Poplicola if the latter would give his real name. The anonymous Poplicola, however, knew the value of keeping his light under a bushel in those troubled times, and kept his identity a secret in spite of a promise, on the part of the Prophet, not to “ give him any hogoo or ungenerous scurrilities.” There was in fact good need for giving the assurance, since scurrilous articles pro and con were making the Gazette disgracefully interesting.

The tea commissioners were the first victims of the popular intolerance. A contemporary has recorded for us the sport of hunting a poor tea commissioner, an animal who is “ a sort of hermaphrodite in politics,” having no title to liberty, property or the freedom of uttering his sentiments like other men.2 The epithet and its elucidation have a singular fitness, since the commissioners, though regarded as egregious Tories, were roundly abused by their presumed party if they weakened in the discharge of their unpopular duty. There was, however, an easy choice of evils, for the Tories con-

1 James Rivington was at this time honestly trying to conduct an independent paper in New York city, but the Whigs would permit nothing but the most extreme Whig sentiments, and Rivington was in time forced into support of the British government.

H

THE LOYALISTS.

f

* fined their abuse to villification, a form of persecution which failed in some cases to satisfy the more ardent Whigs.

In New York, one November evening, a number of persons assembled in School Street, broke the windows and did other damage by throwing large stones into the house of an Agent of the East India Company.1 As a result of like threats and more formal requests, originating in mass-meeting, the commissioners in New York, Philadelphia and Charleston resigned their commissions. In Boston, alone, the requests to resign met with refusal. As a result Boston became the center of rebellious interest, and Samuel Adams became in Tory eyes the Wat Tyler of America.

After consulting the other towns of the state by means of the efficient committees of correspondence, Boston determined upon uncompromising resistance. The day after the first of the tea ships came into the harbor a broadside appeared with an appeal to “friends, brethren and countrymen.” In demagogic phrase it proclaimed : “ That worst of all plagues, the detested tea, shipped for this port by the East India Company, is now arrived in this harbor. The hour of« destruction or manly opposition to the machinations of tyranny stares you in the face. Every friend to his country, to himself and to posterity, is now called upon to meet at Faneuil Hall at nine o’clock this day (at which 1 Rivington' s Gazette , November 25, 1773-

THE SONS OF DESPOTISM.

time the bells will ring) to make united and successful resistance to this last, worst and most destructive measure of administration.” 1 The paper branded with the name of enemy to his country, to himself and to posterity, every man who was indifferent or opposed to its sentiments. This was the spirit of the time and soon drove all but the most insignificant men into either the Whig or Tory party.

The meeting at Faneuil Hall was adjourned to the Old South Meeting House, where an unanimous vote demanded that the tea be returned to England. That night the tea-ships were guarded, and next day the consignees offered" to store the unwelcome cargo if the landing were permitted. The offer was indignantly refused, and a resolution passed forbidding ship-owners bringing tea from Great Britain to Massachusetts while the duty was unrepealed. Any transgressor was to be regarded as an enemy to his country, and his tea should be sent back to the place whence it came. Thus the determined opposition proceeded step by step 2 until at the meeting on December sixteenth, an hour after nightfall, Rotch, the owner of the tea-ships, entered the town meeting with the refusal of the Governor to allow Him to pass out of the harbor. Samuel Adams arose and quietly announced :

2 The detailed story has no logical place in this book except as it illustrates the forcing of the unsympathetic into the Tory ranks.

1 6

THE LOYALISTS.

“ This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.” Then the immortal band of Boston Indians did what the meeting had failed to do. Next morning the tea lay like seaweed on Dorchester beach, and the angry loyalists were threatening the terrible wrath of King George. \

Yet there was some bravado in their threats, for one of the most zealous of them wrote about this time to an English officer, complaining that for want of support those who had been friends of the government and its servants were now in a much worse state than at any former period.1 He went on to show that, because Parliament had not taken active measures to coerce the turbulent spirits, the loyalists were giving up their efforts. It is difficult to see that the loyalists had made much effort, but it is certain that they had been wretchedly supported. The ministry, Edmund Burke said, had “ never had any kind of system, right or wrong ; but only invented some miserable tale for the day, in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties into which they had proudly strutted.” 2 The Loyalists therefore hoped against precedent during the months while the Tea Party news traveled to England and the measures of retaliation traveled back.

They had, meanwhile, to hear and read a great deal about the “ pestilential herb ” and the “ detestable plant.” Newspaper poets sang of the

1 Stevens’ Facsimiles, No. 2029, MSS. of Lord Dartmouth.

2 Burke’s “Works,” II., 14.

THE SONS OF DESPOTISM.

1 7

Hi/-

“ fated plant of India’s shore ” and urged Freedom’s sons to “ dash the cup infused with bane.” “ Pernicious, baleful tea” was shown to be possessed of “all Pandora’s ills.” No Tory dared offer his neighbor a drink of tea unless he was absolutely sure of the neighbor’s political sentiments. Every stranger was feared as a spy, and even the most reckless Tory wanted good proof of the political sympathy of his guest before offering him tea. “Jack Traveller” related that, when he asked for tea, the landlord winked and ordered the maid to bring in some “ white coffee.” The dish of “ white coffee ” was, Mr. Traveller informs us, the most delicious tea.1 Nor was that the only “white coffee ” to be found in the colonies in those theoretically tea-less days. Many refused to be deprived of their favorite drink, in spite of the danger of being

“Tarred, feathered and carted for drinking bohea And by force and oppression compelled to be free.” 2

A philosophic observer of American manners in those days thought that the lack of the advantages, fox. recreation, offered in more settled communities, had caused the Americans to set greater store the more sensual pleasures of eating and drinking However logical this reasoning may be. the fac mains that the Tory party secured many a sympathizer from among those who would have been

1 Rivingtori s Gazette , December 29, 1779.

2 Moore’s “Diary,” II., 22.

i8

THE LOYALISTS .

indifferent had they not been asked to give up the good things of life to maintain a principle they did not understand. Nevertheless, he who “ bowed down to the Tea Chest, the God of the Heathen,”1 went into his closet and shut the door, as we are told in a scriptural parody of the time.

But the Loyalists did not endure all this taunting and repression without an attempt to bring retaliation upon their oppressors. As yet they had no party organization, owing in part to the inefficiency of the crown officers, who could have led the opposition, but who relied too much on English assist- ! ance to act effectively in their own behalf. The scriptural parodist represents them as smiting their breasts and crying, “these Whigs fear thee not, O King, neither have they obeyed the voice of our Lord the King, nor worshipped the Tea Chests which thou hast set up, whose length was three cubits, and the breadth thereof one cubit and a half.” In long earnest letters to influential men in Englan d thFHIoyTIEts , wiThTfluHaioTe^ the