USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > 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.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21
Gc 974.702 N422fli 1788970
M. L.
REYNOLDS HISTORICAL GENEALOGY COLLECTION
ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 01145 1439
STUDIES IN HISTORY ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW Loyalism in N.Y. during amer. Revolution
EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Flick
V.14
VOLUME FOURTEEN
EBORACI
TuQ.
WWW.CEBIMU
SIGI
'LAON KY
CO
EL 1.1.2.7
COLUMB
New Dork THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS LONDON : P. S. KING & SON 1902
--
11.88970
CONTENTS
I. LOYALISM IN NEW YORK DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
PAGE -Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph.D .. I
2. THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF RISK AND INSURANCE-Allan H. Willett, Ph.D. .
283
3. THE EASTERN QUESTION : A STUDY IN DIPLOMACY-Stephen Pierce Hayden Duggan, Ph.D. 425
1 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015
https://archive.org/details/loyalisminnewyor14flic
STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW
EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Volume XIV] [Number 1
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK
DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY ALEXANDER CLARENCE FLICK, Ph.D., Sometime University Fellow in History, Columbia University Professor of European History in Syracuse University
CZ
STOL
New Dork THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS LONDON : P. S. KING & SON 1901
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
The religious and political side of loyalism-The loyalists were Americans, not Englishmen-The origin of the loyalist party-Officialism as a factor in loyalism-The "Leislerians" and the "Aristocrats "-The develop- ment of the colonial social-political groups-Zenger's trial, King's Col- lege controversy and the Stamp Act as party factors-Party changes from 1770 to 1774-The Continental Congress completes the organiza- tion of the loyalist party-The character and classes of loyalists. ......
PAGES
9
CHAPTER II
FINAL ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
Loyalist opposition to the Continental Congress-Efforts of the last gen- eral assembly for peace-The Provincial Convention opposed by the loyalists - Effect of Lexington on the loyalist cause - Work of the committee of one hundred-The general association made a test of the loyalists' position-The loyalists oppose the second Provincial Congress -Attitude of the loyalists toward separation from England-The Decla- ration of Independence gives final form to the loyalist party
37
CHAPTER III WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
The treatment of the loyalists by the revolutionary government before August 3, 1775, and after-The disarming of all " non-associators "- The resolves of the Continental Congress of January 2, 1776-The com- mittee on "intestine enemies " appointed in May, 1776-The work of the "standing committee " of July 9, 1776-The terror of the mob and ideas of liberty-The whigs and loyalists hate and abuse each other. . .. 5] 5
58
6
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV
COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS
PAGES
Origin of the county and district committees-Relation of the lower boards to the higher ones-Action of the local committees before the act of August 3, 1775-Grounds for the arrest of loyalists-The various forms of punishment-Loyalists in Tryon county-Loyalists in Orange, Dutchess and Westchester counties-Loyalists in Queens and Richmond counties -Character of the various local committees.
78
CHAPTER V
ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE DECLA- RATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Effect of the English occupation of southern New York on the loyalists- English policy of arming the loyalists-Loyalists arm before the arrival of the British-" Tory plots "-Thousands of loyalists enlist under Howe -Governor Tryon made Major-General of the Provincial forces-Oliver De Lancey commissioned Brigadier-General-Roger's Rangers-Fear of the whigs-Activity of loyalists north of New York city-Effect of Bur- goyne's campaign on the loyalists-Saratoga-Oriskany-Loyalists at- tack Schoharie in 1778, Chemung in 1779 and the Mohawk Valley in 1780-1-Number of loyalist troops in New York-Help given the Brit- ish by loyalists who were not soldiers
CHAPTER VI
COMMISSIONERS ON LOYALISTS, 1776-1781
Constitutional Convention called to organize a new state government- Effect on status of loyalists-Loyalist petitions to the new government -Whigs demand harsher treatment of loyalists-Resolution of July 16, 1776, defining citizenship and treason-Committees ordered to seize all obnoxious tories-Washington seizes them and sends them to Connecti- cut-Convention takes cognizance of loyalists-Committee on loyalists appointed September 21, 1776-Organization and work of the committee -Special committee to co-operate with General Schuyler-Treatment of loyalists-A new committee of three appointed December 31, :776- Loyalists offered the oath of allegiance-Uprising of loyalists in Dutchess and Westchester counties, and in other parts of the state-A " Fleet prison " for the loyalists-Loyalists ordered to be tried by court-martial after March 31, 1777-Courts of oyer and terminer-Work of the com- missioners on loyalists in 1777-A third committee on loyalists created April 3, 1778-Work of the committee till 1781-Oath of allegiance still the test of loyalism-County committees after July 4, 1776-None in southern New York-Their activity in northern New York
[6
95
I16
CONTENTS
7]
CHAPTER VII
CONFISCATION AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE LOYALISTS
PAGES
135
CHAPTER VIII
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
Loyalists oppose peace-Effort of England to provide for the loyalists in the treaty of peace-New York refuses to comply with the terms of the treaty-Act of May 12, 1784, disfranchising loyalists-Classes of New York loyalists-Loyalists who remain in New York-Loyalist refugees who return to their homes-Loyalists who leave the state forever-Their flight after 1774-They go to England, Canada and Nova Scotia-Their settlements in Nova Scotia-Their emigration to Canada-Numbers . ..
161
CHAPTER IX
TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS BY GREAT BRITAIN
Early promises of aid to loyalists-Treatment of loyalists by the military authorities-Assistance given to them by the civil powers-Treatment of loyalists in Canada and Nova Scotia before 1783-Effect of peace on their situation-After the war they receive lands, provisions, tools and seeds in Nova Scotia-Those who went to Canada were treated similarly -Offices given to prominent loyalists-Temporary help given to loyalists who fled to England before 1783-Committee to examine claims-Peti- tions for compensation for losses after the war-A commission appointed to examine them-Work of the commission-Two commissioners sent to British America-Results of the examinations-Amount received by New York loyalists
7
Growth of the idea of confiscation of loyalist property-English precedents -First act of confiscation August 3, 1775-Scattered acts of confiscation -After July 4, 1776, confiscations become more numerous-Various orders about loyalist property-March 6, 1777, three paid commissioners appointed for each county north of New York city to sell the personal property of loyalists-Work of the commissioners-Dutchess county the best example-Sums realized-Difficult to reduce them to sterling values -Office abolished May 12, 1784-Real estate of loyalists held in trust before October 22, 1779-Act of October 22, 1779, attaints fifty-nine loyalists and declares their property forfeited-Commissioners of for- feiture appointed for each of the four districts-Forfeited estates sold in the middle district-Work of the commissioners in the western district- Sales in the eastern district-Disposal of loyalist property in the south- ern district-Sales made by the surveyor general after 1788-Sum re- alized by the state-Petitions to the legislature about property-Demo- cratic results of these sales.
183
8 CONTENTS [8
APPENDIX
I. Sales of forfeited estates in the southern district. PAGES
215
2. Sales of forfeited estates in the middle district
257
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
273
CHAPTER I
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
LOYALISM, as believed and practiced during the Amer- ican revolution, had both a religious and a political side. It was based upon the fundamental teachings of Anglicanism, which made loyalty to the ruler and obedience to law re- ligious duties.1 This did not mean abject submission to acts looked upon as blunders, or as being unjust. It was not " non-resistance and passive obedience," for none upheld and used with more telling effect than the loyalists the sacred right of petition and remonstrance.2 Only when the issue came to be one between submission to the will of the king and parliament, as expressed in law, and resistance by re- bellion or revolution, did religious duty enforce obedience. The political science of Anglicanism was, therefore, a funda- mental principle in loyalism.
' Dr. Myles Cooper, the President of King's College and the recognized clerical leader of the loyalists in 1774, set forth this phase of loyalism best. God, he said, established the laws of government, ordained the British power and commanded all to obey authority. American Querist, etc., queries 90-100. "The laws of heaven and earth " forbade rebellion. To threaten open disrespect to government was " an unpardonable crime." A Friendly Address, etc., 5. "The principles of sub- mission and obedience to lawful authority are inseparable from a sound, genuine member of the Church of England as any religious principles." That church had three homilies on obedience and six on rebellion. Its members prayed to be made loyal. The church was ashamed of those who disregarded these sacred principles. Ibid., 45-49.
" Dr. Myles Cooper asserted that subjects might remonstrate against unjust laws forced upon them. A Friendly Address, etc., 5, 43. Other loyalists took the same position. Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ?, 44-48 ..
9]
9
IO
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [IO
Anglicanism did not appear as a factor in colonial politics in New York until the latter part of the seventeenth century, though introduced with the English occupation of New Netherland.1 From that time until the revolution, however, it was one of the most potent influences in shaping colonial parties. It valiantly upheld royal prerogatives.2 Its clergy. were " nurtured in sentiments of loyalty." Its prayers as- cended constantly for the king and his officers. It furnished the best arguments for loyalism and taught them to its com- municants. It spread rapidly over the colony. The con- servative Dutch and not a few of the aristocratic Huguenot families joined the English church.3 By 1775 the Episcopa- lians constituted the most influential element of the popula- tion.
With scarcely an exception the Anglican ministers were ardent loyalists and the leaders in their communities. The writers and pamphleteers, who furnished the keen, brainy defense of loyalism, were teachers and priests of that faith.4 The leading loyalists, who were active in a military or civil capacity during the war, were members of that church. The rank and file of loyalists were to a large extent believ- ers in that creed. Thus loyalism and Anglicanism were largely united in practice as they were in theory and in logic.5
1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iii, 59.
' Ibid., viii, 208; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 211.
3 Cf. John Adams' Diary for August 21, 1774, while visiting in New York city. " Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 208.
5 In the time of the tea riots a loyalist wrote from New York : "You would perhaps think it proper to ask whether no Church of England people were among them [the rioters]. Yes, there were, to their eternal shame be it spoken! But in general they were interested in the motion, either as smugglers of goods, or as being over-burdened with dry-goods they know not how to pay for. . . . But, sir, they are few in number. Believe me, the Presbyterians have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. . Government at home,
II
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
II]
On its political side loyalism stood for the recognition of law as against rebellion in any form,1 for the unity of the empire as against a separate, independent existence of the colonies, and for monarchy instead of republicanism.2 It clung to the established order of things; in its conservatism it avoided dangerous "revolutionary principles " and shunned association with those "that are given to change."" This did not mean that the loyalists upheld England's colonial system in all its features, or that they sanctioned her unwise policy in dealing with the colonists." If anything, in the days before the revolution, they were more active than the whigs in seeking to modify that system and to correct the known abuses.5 Their method was to operate through legally organized bodies in ways provided by the constitu-
if they mean to look for genuine loyalty and cordial affection to the state, will nowhere find it except in the hearts of the professors of the Church of England. . . . The Church of England people . . . did, from principle ... everything they could . . . to stop the rapid progress of sedition." Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 301.
1 Whether the British parliament is right or wrong, our actions have been "in- tolerant," asserted Dr. Cooper. A Friendly Address, etc., 4. He despised the radical whigs of Suffolk co., Mass., whom he called "these rebellious republi- cans, these hair-brained fanatics, mad and distracted as the Anabaptists of Muns- ter." Ibid., 29. " Count the cost of rebellion and you will stop it." Ibid., 33; ibid., 43, 45. " If one can violate law, all can-then anarchy results." Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 39-43; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 41-43, 44-48.
2 Cooper, American Querist, etc., queries 80-89; Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 24: Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc,, 52-59.
3Cooper, American Querist, queries 99-100.
4 Dr. Cooper was inclined to think the tea duty " dangerous to constitutional liberty." A Friendly Address, etc., 13, 31; Seabury, A View of the Controversy, etc., 23; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now? 7.
5 Dr. Cooper declared the Stamp Act to be contrary to American rights, and ap- proved of the opposition to the duties on paper, glass, et cetera. A Friendly Address, etc., 43.
12
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [12
tion. They had positive remedies to suggest which, they constantly insisted, would have secured in time every de- mand of the whigs except independence.1
The loyalists were Americans, not Englishmen. They felt,'however, that the best interests of the colonies would be served by remaining a part of the great empire,2 even though laboring under heavy and grievous burdens, because they believed that England's sense of justice would soon lead to the removal of the hardships. Hence, before inde- pendence through revolution became the paramount issue, many loyalists favored mild measures such as non-im- portation and non-exportation, while only the royal officials and Anglican clergy and teachers-the ultra-loyalists-de-
1 The plan submitted by Dr. Cooper was " a formal allowance of the rightful supremacy in general of Great Britain over the American colonies-a declaration of our opposition to a state of independence with a corresponding behaviour-a respectful remonstrance on the subject of taxation-an assurance of our willingness to contribute, in some equitable proportion,towards defraying the public expense- and the proposal of a reasonable plan for a general American constitution." A Friendly Address, etc., 43; Seabury, Free Thoughts, ctc., 46-48; Seabury, The Con- gress Canvassed, etc., 44-47, 48, 52-59. Seabury advocated the "settlement of an American constitution," granting self- government under the sovereign imperial par- liament. Prudence would secure that. Then "the dependence of the colonies ... will be fixed on a firm foundation; the sovereign authority of parliament over all dominions of the empire will be established; and the mother country and her col- onies will be knit together in one grand, firm and compact body." A View of the Controversy, ctc., 21-23; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 42-48.
2 " My ancestors were among the first Englishmen who settled in America. I have no interest but in America. I have not a relation out of it that I know of. Yet, let me die ! but I had rather be reduced to the last shilling, than that the im- perial dignity of Great Britain should sink, or be controlled, by any people or power on earth." Seabury, A View of the Controversy, ctc., 23. Another prom- nent loyalist said, " My most earnest wish is for the happiness of America. I con- sider Great Britain and her colonies ... as but one body, which must be af- fected throughout by the sufferings of any one member. I consider them as con- stituting one great and illustrious family to which I have the honor to belong; and I pray that its tranquility may be speedily restored, and that peace and harmony may forever reign through every part of it." Chandler, What Think Ye of Con- gress Now ? 44-48.
13]
13
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
nounced them.1 After July 4, 1776, the loyalists, seeing that the day of argument and moderation was past, believed that the integrity of the empire and the happiness of Amer- ica could be secured only by crushing the revolutionary spirit and by subduing their rebellious brethren by force. This conviction, supplemented by the bitterness caused by the hardships and persecutions suffered at the hands of their whig countrymen, led them to sanction England's military program .? As they viewed the situation, their per- sonal hopes and the future of their country now depended entirely upon the success of British arms.
The imperial government had the encouragement, advice, material aid and services of the loyalists. For seven years their cause was common with that of England in the means used and the immediate object, but not in the purpose or ultimate end. The loyalists had no more idea of surrender- ing the principles involved in the contest before 1775 than the whigs. But revolution had first to be crushed. The unexpected success of the revolution, however, blasted all their hopes and threw them upon either the tender mercies of their victorious fellow citizens, or the charity of Great Britain.
The colonial parties of New York, or more strictly the groups representing certain political tendencies, were pri- marily religious and social. Out of these elements and the local and imperial civic conditions and relations grew the political differences.3 With the planting of officialism, the
1 For the attitude of extreme loyalists, cf. Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 35-42; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 3-36; Chandler, What Think Ye of Con- gress Now ? 27-37.
" They maintained that the ground of contest had been completely changed Before, it was a struggle against English despotism, but now it was a fight against American independence and tyranny. The Letters of Papinian, Preface, iii, probably written by Rev. Charles Inglis.
3 Colden wrote in 1770: " From the different political and religious principles of
14
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [14
introduction of Anglicanism, the development of a type of feudalism and the growth of large fortunes in trade, came that community in interests, unity in beliefs and aristocratic rank which formed the environment for the doctrine of loyalism.
Whatever force or influence tended to emphasize or mag- nify centralized imperial or colonial power, to sanctify kingly prerogative, to subordinate colonial to imperial affairs, to enforce obedience to law, to develop social interests which depended for their triumph on the maintenance of a con- nection with England, to extend the Anglican church, to suppress the hazy democratic ideas that were in the air, to curtail the growing power of the general assembly, or to accumulate property in the hands of the few, was laying the foundation for the loyalist party.
The colonial period was marked by a contest between a strong and exclusive executive power, such as was upheld by the directors of the West India Company, the English government, and the Anglican church, on the one hand, and local rights and privileges, such as were demanded by the Dutch, French and English subjects and set forth in the Calvinistic creeds and the acts and resolves of the assem- blies, on the other hand. This struggle had most to do with the formation of those religious-political groups which were to develop into the whig and loyalist parties of the revolution. The dominant political force in the conflict was officialism, that system by which the king's powers were extended to the province through a distinct class of depend- ent agents. The governor, as the representative of the doctrine,1 gathered about him all those elements that upheld
the inhabitants, opposite parties have existed at all times, and will exist in this Province, which at different times have taken their denominations from some dis- tinguished person or family who have appeared at their head." N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 223.
1 "We derive our authority from God and the Company, not from a few ignorant subjects," boasted Stuyvesant. Cf. the statement of Lord Cornbury, Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 1122.
1
3
15]
15
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
the royal prerogatives and sought to maintain them un- changed. Hence every concession demanded and every privilege assumed by the popular branch of the govern- ment were contested by the crown officers.
The numerous petitions sent to England by the colonial executives 1 begging for help did not go unheeded. British authorities appreciated the necessity of upholding the hands of the colonial royal officials in order to keep the colonies in a state of subordination. Again and again decisions were rendered to strengthen the governor's powers or to support his recommendations." The trade laws, the billeting act, the stamp act, the tea-tax, the declaratory act, and finally, war itself, were simply parts of the policy of the English gov- ernment to support its powers as exercised through the king's agents. Nevertheless, by 1774 many of the powers which the governors possessed in 1689 had been lost.3 The strength of the official class had been much diminished, though its pretensions were still large and its influence war sufficient to make it the nucleus about which rallied the loyalist party.'
Not until 1689 did social-political groups appear with clearness in the province. Then it became apparent that the shop-keepers, small farmers, sailors, shipwrights, poor traders and artisans were not in sympathy with the patroons, rich fur-traders, merchants, lawyers and crown officers. At that time the two groups were called "Leislerians" and
1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., v, 900, 902, 937, 941, 975; vi, 76, 285, 287, 379, 404, 408, 529, 536; vii, 548, 832, 994.
' Ibid., viii, 815; N. Y. Assemb. Four. (1767-1776), 34; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1876), 421.
3 Cf. Explanation of the loss of the New York governor's prerogatives, by Gov- ernor Shirley. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., v, 432-437; Cf. Smith, Hist. of N. Y. (Albany, 1814), 441.
4 Cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 45.
16
LOYALISMI IN NEW YORK [16
"Aristocrats." 1 The leaders of the latter faction were Peter Schuyler,2 Nicholas Bayard,3 Frederick Phillipse,' Stephen Van Cortlandt5 and Robert Livingston.6 They wished to continue government under authority from James II, until definite instructions should be received from king William.7 Both factions professed loyalty to the new sovereign, but the aristocrats insisted upon showing it in a strictly legal way and denounced the hasty, unwarranted course of the Leis- lerians. The issue at this time, therefore, was one of law and precedent rather than of loyalism. It must be remembered, however, that legality was one of the prime factors in the loyalist's creed.
From 1690 until the events of the revolution brought about a final readjustment of party lines and the appearance of whigs and loyalists, these two factions can be traced more or less distinctly. In the modern sense they were not par- ties, but they did bear a resemblance to the parties in Eng- land at that period. Membership was not determined by race or speech, Dutch, French and English being found on both sides; nor was it determined even by a decided differ- ence in political principles, but rather by creed, wealth and social position. A divergence, however, in political ideas is early noticeable, which became more defined with the passing of time, until at the outbreak of the revolution it had become fundamental.
1 Cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 508. The " Aristocrats" were also called " Jacobites" by the " Leislerians."
" In the contest over the courts he joined the popular party.
$ He was a deacon in the Dutch Reformed Church.
+ His family were loyalists.
5 He was also a Dutch Reformed Church deacon.
" He joined the liberal party in 1698. Dunlap, Hist. of the Province of N. Y.,
i, 230. For a further list of " Aristocrats," cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 849. 1 Ibid., iii, 636.
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.