USA > Connecticut > The loyalists of Connecticut > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
سعيد
مـ
£
Gc 974.6 P33L 1487229
GENEALOGY COLLECTION
M. L
V
ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 01104 3152
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019
https://archive.org/details/loyalistsofconne00peck
TERCENTENARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
QUI
SUSTINEZ
TRANSTULIT
COMMITTEE ON
HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS
# 31 The Loyalists of Connecticut
Peck
PUBLISHED FOR THE TERCENTENARY COMMISSION BY THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1934
60 974.6 P33l
GENEALOGY COLLECTION
TERCENTENARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COMMITTEE ON HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS
The Loyalists of Connecticut
EPAPHRODITUS PECK
I LARGE proportion of Americans have been im- bued with the idea that the American Revolution was a spontaneous and practically unanimous uprising of the colonists against tyranny and oppression, and that the tories were a small group of ob- stinate and evil-minded persons who amply deserved what- ever harsh treatment they received. Recent studies by impartial historians have shown, however, that this con- ception of our Revolutionary history is very far from true.
In New York the supporters of the king were in a clear majority, if not in numbers, at least in wealth, public dis- tinction, and influence. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela- ware, Maryland, and Virginia contained large and influ- ential loyalist minorities. North Carolina was about equally divided. South Carolina probably and Georgia certainly had loyalist majorities.
Philadelphia, though the home of the Declaration of Independence, was occupied by British troops during a considerable part of the war, and the British officers were then conspicuous in the social life of the city. Of course,
I
the Quakers were very influential in Pennsylvania, and that pacific people had a strong disposition to avoid an armed conflict on any terms. John Fiske, in his American Revolution,' quotes the resolutions of a convention of Pennsylvania Quakers, that "the setting up and putting down kings and governments is God's peculiar preroga- tive, for causes best known to himself, and that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busybodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king and safety of our nation and good of all men; that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all good- ness and honesty, under the government which God is pleased to set over us. May we, therefore, firmly unite in the abhorrence of all such writings and measures as evi- dence a desire and design to break off a happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed with the kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king and those who are lawfully placed in authority un- der him."
In Massachusetts, "the cradle of the Revolution," pub- lic sentiment was by no means unanimous. Stark, in his Loyalists of Massachusetts, after declaring that the officers of that colony appointed by the crown and their friends were naturally opposed to the Revolution, adds: "Hardly to be distinguished from the official class were the clergy of the Established Church, who were partially dependent for their livings upon the British government. . . . The aristocracy of culture, of dignified professions and callings, of official rank and hereditary wealth, was, in a large measure, found in the Loyalist party. ... The men who had abilities which could not be recognized under the ex- isting regime, and those that form the lower strata of I Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York, 2 vols., 1891.
2
every society and are ever ready to overthrow the existing order of things, these were the ones who were striving to bring about a change-a revolution."
II 1487229
IN Connecticut the line of separation between the patriots who supported the Revolution and the loyalists who sup- ported the king was more clearly marked than anywhere else, and coincided generally with the line of denomina- tional cleavage. The great body of Congregational minis- ters and their parishioners were firm in their resistance to the royal power and, when the time seemed right, for in- dependence; while the Churchmen or Anglicans, led by their clergymen, were equally united in loyalty to the king and in opposition to what they considered rebellion and treason.
There were exceptions, perhaps more frequent in the Congregational majority than in the Anglican minority. John Smalley, minister of the First Church in New Britain, declared to some of his clerical brethren that the people of Massachusetts were "guilty of downright rebellion against Majesty itself," and when the call came for volunteers to go to Boston, said: "What! Will you fight against your King?" Another version has it that he uttered these words when his Sunday sermon was interrupted by messengers who rushed into the meeting house to announce that the British were attacking New London, and that volunteers were called to go to the relief of that town, and when Gad Stanley, captain of the local militia, arose in his pew and called on all patriots who were ready to march to New London to follow him out of the church. Whatever was the occasion for this loyal outburst, it was bitterly re- sented by many of his parishioners, and Smalley was obliged to keep silence on the political issues of the day as
3
a condition of retaining his parish; but he succeeded in holding not only his sacred office, but the affection and respect of his parishioners, until his death in 1820.
This identification of loyalty to the king with devotion to the Church of England gave a degree of respectability, and also a quality of emotional fervor, to the loyalist cause in Connecticut that it may have lacked elsewhere. Sabine, in his American Loyalists, says: "I feel assured that, in Connecticut, the number of adherents of the crown was greater, in proportion to the population, than in Maine, Massachusetts, or New Hampshire." Professor Siebert, who made a careful study of the loyalist party in Con- necticut, cites with apparent approval an estimate that "Connecticut had about 2000 male Loyalists at the be- ginning of the Revolution." This probably means that that number of men was openly on the side of the king, and does not include those who from lack of courage or for other reasons had concealed their sentiments and re- frained from any activity on either side.
The reason why the Anglican clergy of Connecticut and their people were so strenuous in opposition to the Revolution, while in Virginia most of the Revolutionary leaders, including George Washington, were loyal adher- ents of the Church of England, is to be found in the pre- ceding century and a half of New England history. Massa- chusetts and Connecticut were originally settled by men and women some of whom had been actually driven out of England by the authorities of the Anglican Church, and others had been in conflict with those authorities, and had come to a bleak and unknown wilderness to escape ecclesiastical tyranny. Naturally, with this background, the first generation of settlers in Massachusetts and Con- necticut had little affection for the Church of England, but had a constant fear that its prelates would seek to
4
extend their power to the colonies, and close the inde- pendent churches here.
In the half century which followed the establishment of the first settlements a good many people had come to New England for other reasons than for "freedom to worship God." Most of these had less religious zeal than had the early Pilgrims and Puritans, and some had no religious zeal at all. To one who had been accustomed from child- hood to the ritual services of the English Church, espe- cially if he had lived in a large town where the services of the church were carried on with dignity and some degree of splendor, the barren and austere services of the New England meeting houses must have seemed a poor substi- tute; and doubtless many, who would have made no fervid expression of religious feeling, had an innate reverence for the sacraments, especially if administered by a priest in holy orders conferred by a successor of the apostles, which the long sermons and long prayers of the Puritan ministers did not inspire. Some of the ministers, too, in their read- ing of theology found the writings of the great English divines convincing and persuasive.
When Charles II, after his restoration to the throne, sent commissioners to ascertain the state of things in New England, the commission reported that the Connecticut colony "will not hinder any from enjoying the Sacraments and using the Common Prayer Book provided they hinder not the maintenance of the public minister." In 1689, the first year of the reign of William and Mary, an Act of Toleration was passed, which permitted Protestant dis- senters to carry on without molestation their own forms of worship. This naturally gave the Anglicans a claim to similar relief in Connecticut, and at the May session of the general court in 1708, a statute was passed, which by its terms was based upon the English Act of Toleration
5
and permitted "such as soberly dissent from the way of worship and ministrie established by the antient laws of this government" to appear before the county court and "qualifie themselves" in the same manner as provided in the English act, and thereupon to "enjoy the same liber- tie and priviledge in any place within this Colonie with- out any let, hindrance and molestation whatsoever," but with the proviso that they should not be exempt "from paying any such minister or town dues, as are now, or shall hereafter be due from them." Thus the situation in Connecticut was quite clearly defined. The Congregational churches were "owned and acknowledged established by law,"2 but toleration was granted to sober dissenters to worship God in their own way, provided they paid the taxes levied for the support of the Congregational ministers.
The first Anglican church in Connecticut was built in 1724 in Stratford, and fifty years later the Anglicans were estimated to be about one third of the population of Fair- field county, and about one thirteenth of the population of the entire colony of Connecticut. In 1727 the Church- men of Fairfield presented a petition to the general as- sembly for relief in the matter of taxation and the assembly, again affirming the duty of all persons, both of the Church of England and of the Congregational churches, to pay their lawful taxes for the support of the ministry, granted important concessions in favor of the Anglicans.
The more tolerant treatment of the Churchmen by statute did not prevent much complaint, some of it prob- ably justified, of intolerance even amounting to persecu- tion in many communities. Friction between the two groups was inevitable. Many an Anglican clergyman, who had been ordained by an English bishop and deemed him- self therefore in the apostolic succession and an official of
2 By the act of 1708 ratifying the Saybrook Platform.
6
the Established Church, found it hard to accept a posi- tion of inferiority, financially, legally, and socially to his Congregational rival; and the lay members of the Anglican churches shared this feeling. Each party called the other dissen ters.
Two facts in particular tended to create hostility be- tween the Congregational majority and the Anglican mi- nority. There was no American bishop, and men (many of them originally Congregational ministers) who desired Anglican orders had to go to England for ordination. A journey to England was then by no means the easy and safe procedure which it now is. Dr. Johnson wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury that of the fifty-two men who had gone to England for ordination in little more than forty years, ten had lost their lives on the journey.
On the other hand, the rulers of Connecticut were de- termined in their opposition to the establishment of an American episcopate. It was from the tyranny of epis- copacy that their fathers had fled to America. They were well aware that the Congregational churches of New England were looked upon by the English authorities as illegal, schismatic, and altogether pestiferous, and they felt that the arrival of a bishop in America would be the first step toward restoration of the despotism against which the very existence of New England was a protest.
While the question of establishing an American epis- copate showed the existence of a fundamental antagonism between the contending parties, the question of taxation created more personal bitterness. Practically every Con- necticut community was first organized as an ecclesiastical society, which had the right and duty to call a minister, build a meeting house, and conduct religious services. The cost was defrayed by taxation. In the great majority of cases the revenue that could be obtained by taxation was
7
meager, and any attempt to evade payment of the min- ister's rate or the meeting house rate on conscientious grounds was looked upon with great suspicion, and often resulted in legal proceedings to enforce payment of the tax.
On the other hand, those who were sincere adherents of the Church of England, and were carrying a heavy load of expense to build a church and support a minister of that order, naturally thought it a great hardship to be com- pelled to pay taxes for the support of the Congregational establishment. Sometimes even the Anglican clergyman himself was called upon to pay taxes for the support of his Congregational rival. It can readily be seen that the en- forcement of such demands would create a bitter feeling of oppression in the minds of the Anglican clergy and people.
It is evident that, when the contest between the king and parliament of Great Britain and the people of New England broke out into open warfare, the two groups of Connecticut citizens were certain to take opposite posi- tions in the struggle. The dominant majority held firmly to a form of religious worship and organization established here by law, but barely tolerated in England; the minority professed no less devotion to a church established by law in England, but only tolerated in Connecticut. The basic civic virtue to the mind of the majority was zeal for lib- erty; to that of the minority it was loyalty.
III
IN 1764 news reached New England that the British par- liament proposed to levy a tax on the people of the American colonies by the requirement of stamps on all legal docu- ments. The Connecticut general court at its May session of 1764 appointed a committee of three members to assist the governor to draft a protest "against creating and col- lecting a revenue in America, more particularly in this
8
Colony, and especially against effecting the same by Stamp Duties." Governor Fitch, with the assistance of this committee, prepared an elaborate statement of the view of the colony, and sent Jared Ingersoll, one of the committee, to England to act with the colonial agent there in presenting it to parliament. However, it did not alter the determination of parliament, and the Stamp Act was passed on March 22, 1765.
The British officers then suggested that Jared Ingersoll himself should accept the office of stamp-master for Con- necticut. He probably supposed that the act would be less obnoxious if administered by a Connecticut man who had been active in trying to prevent its passage, and Benja- min Franklin, whom he consulted, concurred in this view. A consignment of stamps was sent to Connecticut, and Governor Fitch was required by the terms of the act to take and record an oath "to cause all and every of the clauses [of the act] to be punctually and bona fide ob- served." Both Governor Fitch and Ingersoll entirely un- derestimated the indignation of the people of Connecticut at the passage of this act. When Ingersoll reached his home at New Haven, a town meeting was called which demanded that he at once resign his office of stamp-master. He prom- ised the town meeting that he would lay the matter before the general court at Hartford, and set out for that city. The unfortunate coincidence that the initials of Jared Ingersoll were the same as those of Judas Iscariot was pointedly brought out in the oratory of the opposition. As Ingersoll rode toward Hartford, he was met by horse- men, who when they reached Wethersfield were about five hundred in number. At Wethersfield they halted the party and demanded that Ingersoll at once resign his of- fice. As he was totally unable to resist the armed and de- termined mob, he at last signed a formal paper of resig-
9
nation, containing the very dubious statement that he did so of his own "free will and accord." The governor kept the consignment of stamps in his own house, but made no attempt to sell them; and at the expiration of his term of office he was defeated and succeeded by one of the active opponents of the Stamp Act.
The Anglican clergy of the colony were very much dis- tressed by this outburst of popular violence; and the more aggressive of them were outspoken in their condemnation of the popular leaders. Seven of the Anglican clergy of Connecticut met in September, 1765, and sent an address to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel declaring that, "although the commotions and disaffections in this country were very great relative to what was called the imposition of the stamp-act," the people of the Church of England in this colony were "of a contrary temper and conduct, deeming it nothing short of rebellion to speak evil of dignities and to avow opposition to this last act of the Crown." Others of the Anglican clergy hastened to send the same assurance to the Society at home.
IV
THE Stamp Act was, as compared with what came after, as the brisk breeze which precedes a thunder-storm is to the storm itself. When blood was shed at Lexington, Con- cord, and Bunker Hill; when the British ministry had de- termined to crush the revolt here by sending over an army partly composed of mercenaries; when the colonies had organized resistance and created a Continental army un- der command of Washington; and especially after the congress had denounced the king as a tyrant "unfit to be the ruler of a free People," and had declared the inde- pendence of the United States of America; action con- sistent with the conflicting views of the patriots and of
IO
the loyalists made violence and hatred inevitable. To the loyalists the patriots were rebels; to the patriots the loyal- ists were traitors.
Connecticut had taken stern official action before the Declaration of Independence. The general court which met at Hartford in May, 1776, repealed the statute by which any person who should "levy war against Our Lord and King" should "suffer the Pains of Death, and also Loose, and Forfeit as in Cases of High Treason;" provided that all writs should "issue in the name of the Governor and Company of the Colony of Connecticut, in- stead of his Majesty's name;" passed acts to raise a body of minute men, a battalion or regiment "for the Defence of the United Colonies," and two regiments for the special defense of this colony, and to reorganize the militia of the colony; authorized the governor to commission privateers and issue letters of marque and reprisal; and provided for the building of powder mills. In June, 1776, the general court passed an act for the confiscation of the estates of active loyalists, which was made more drastic in 1778;3 and after a stately preamble declaring the necessity of a "total sep- aration from the King of Great Britain and renunciation of all connection with that nation," they unanimously resolved: "That the Delegates of this Colony in General Congress be and they are hereby instructed to propose to that respectable body, to declare the United American Colonies Free and Independent States, absolved from all allegiance to the King of Great Britain. .. . And also, that they move and promote, as fast as may be convenient, a regular and permanent Plan of Union and Confederation of the Colonies, for the security and preservation of their just rights and liberties and for mutual defence and security. ... "
3 See below, p. 22.
II
These vigorous measures show that the government of Connecticut regarded itself as already at war with Great Britain, and was firmly resolved to press that war to the goal of complete independence, and also that it recognized the existence of an opposition party within the state, and was determined to crush it by severe measures.
V
THE loyalists of Connecticut were not supported, like their fellows in Massachusetts and New York, by the presence of a royal army within the colony, to which they could add their strength, and from which they could seek pro- tection. But, General Howe had established an army on Long Island, chiefly consisting of mercenary and other regular troops sent from England, but including regi- ments of American loyalists. Scores of ardent young men from the different groups of Churchmen in Connecticut went to Long Island and enlisted in this army.4 Some, of course, were too timid to oppose the authority of the col- ony and the public opinion of the great majority of their neighbors; while others contented themselves with meet- ing surreptitiously, assisting recruits to get to Long Island, corresponding with the officers of that army, and fur- nishing information to them.
When the Connecticut authorities established a store- house for ammunition and arms at Danbury, information of this fact was communicated to the British officers by Connecticut loyalists; and when General Tryon, the royal
4 These men, who came mainly from Stamford, Norwalk, Fairfield, Strat- ford, New Haven, Waterbury, Reading, and Newtown, mostly enlisted in three regiments: General Browne's Prince of Wales's American Volunteers, the Queen's Rangers, and Colonel Fanning's King's American Regiment. The first of these regiments participated in Tryon's raid of 1777, and the third in that of 1779. The Reverend Samuel Seabury, later first bishop of Connecti- cut, was, for a time, chaplain of Fanning's regiment.
I2
governor of New York, with a force of about two thou- sand men, in April, 1777, was sent to destroy or capture these military stores, he was guided from the mouth of the Saugatuck river, at which he landed his force, to the store-house by four loyalist young men whose names be- came known, and who were afterward the object of the bitter indignation of their neighbors. One of these men, Isaac Wells Shelton, generally known by his neighbors as Tory Shelton, lived for many years after the end of the Revolution in the western part of Bristol, and continued his opposition to the general sentiment of his neighbors by keeping slaves as long as slavery existed in Connecti- cut. In the later similar raids that were made at New Haven,5 Fairfield, Norwalk, and Groton, the raiding par- ties were guided and assisted by Connecticut loyalists, if they were not largely composed of them.
Most of these raids were carried out in a ruthless man- ner, and consisted chiefly in the burning of dwelling houses, meeting houses, and other buildings. While the leaders of the raids intended to exempt loyal subjects from these injuries, and while, in some cases, Anglican churches and the houses of the Churchmen were marked as a signal for that exemption, the private soldiers who carried on the raids were not always careful in the observance of these distinctions, particularly if (as at Danbury) they had captured and destroyed, in the manner most natural to them, a large store of rum. Consequently, several of the Anglican churches in the western part of the state were destroyed together with the more obnoxious Con- gregational buildings. These barbarities, culminating in
5 Inasmuch as two sons of Joshua Chandler, who were also brothers-in-law of Amos Botsford, guided Tryon on his raid to New Haven in 1779, both these New Haven lawyers found it wise to accompany Tryon on his with- drawal, as did some other loyalists from the shore towns.
13
the dastardly murder of Colonel Ledyard at Groton, to- gether with the fact that the raid at Groton was com- manded by Benedict Arnold, whose name had come to be as odious to Connecticut patriots as it had formerly been glorious, roused the people of the state to intense anger, and the loyalists bore the odium of being instigators and participants in these raids.
On the other hand, the Sons of Liberty devoted them- selves zealously to watching and reporting the conduct of those whom they suspected to be friendly to the king's side. Perhaps the Anglican churches suffered as much from the attacks of these turbulent patriots as did the Congregational churches from the British raids which have been mentioned. General Washington himself is said to have rebuked soldiers in his army who were throwing stones at the Litchfield church. Neither party was com- posed entirely of gentle-minded and reasonable persons; and civil wars are notorious for the savagery which gen- erally appears on both sides.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.