USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > Part 13
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 (link on the Part 1 page).
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
During a period of fifty years after the peace of 1783 the New York legislature was disturbed more or less by ques- tions concerning forfeited estates. Suits were brought to recover property.3 For some years the legislature was flooded with petitions from persons whose claims against loy- alists had not been satisfied, from those who had been forci- bly prevented from returning home when captured by the British, from the heirs of loyalists, from repentant loyalists and from the widows of loyalists. These petitions met with varying degrees of success.4 Purchasers also petitioned the assembly for the removal of various grievances.5 Whigs
1 Lecky, Ilist. of Eng. in XVIII. Cent., iii, 479; cf. Parl. Hist., xviii, 123-129; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 773, 957.
2 In the claims submitted to the government of Great Britain, asking compensa- tion for losses, the total amount was considerably larger than this sum received by the state.
3 MS. Assemb. Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol. 26, p. 16, John Waters, a Tryon county loyalist, returned and sued John Thayer for selling his property, and re- covered £976. Thayer then petitioned the legislature to reimburse him.
4 Ibid., volumes 25-29.
5 your. of Assemb. (1781), 26, 27, 50, 51, etc .; MS. petition of several hundred tenants of Roger Morris against John Jacob Astor.
159]
159
CONFISCATION AND SALE OF PROPERTY
were given permission to bring damage suits against loyalists who had injured their property during the war, but in 1797 claims against forfeited estates were ordered barred in five years .? Some of the loyalists who were indicted for treason appeared before the supreme court, and, by employing shrewd lawyers, saved their estates.3 Others, like Theophy- lact Bache, saved their property by the help of influential relatives or friends on the whig side. Small owners, who returned after the war, were in most cases able to recover their estates.
Although the confiscation and sale of loyalist property was primarily a punishment for treason against revolution- ary authority made good by war, still there was a result growing out of it of greater importance than the acquisi- tion of property to the value of about $3,600,000 by the state. That result was the weakening of the feudal element in the social system of New York. The revolution was thus a democratic movement in land-tenure as well as in political rights. The ownership of the greater part of the lands of the state by a few aristocratic landlords like the De Lanceys, the Johnsons, the Skeenes, John Tabor Kempe, the Jessups, Beverly Johnson, Roger Morris and others, now began to give way to ownership by their dependants and tenants. Large manors, patents and estates were to an extent cut up into small lots and sold on easy terms to the common people. Although it was not uncommon for the widow or son of a
1 Laws of N. Y., i, 499, 700, Act of March 17, 1783. Loyalists who used whig houses had to pay eight years' rent. Prosecutions were made against them for cutting timber and other things. Over $1,000,000 were thus claimed for damages. Jones, Hist. of N. Y., ii, 251, 252, 255. In 1784, Ebenezer Allen, a loyalist who furn- ished supplies for Burgoyne, was prosecuted by the state for damages, and a judg- ment was rendered in favor of the state for £375. Can. Archs. (1888), 716.
2 Laws of N. Y., iii, 73.
' Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 64, 66-67.
160
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [160
loyalist to buy in his property,' yet it was not the rule. The property of James De Lancey, for instance, in the southern district, went to about 275 different persons, and the 50,000 acres forfeited by Roger Morris in Putnam county were sold to nearly 250 persons. The large tracts in the central and northern parts of the state were divided into farms of from one to five hundred acres and sold to poor farmers. The whole movement was leveling, equalizing and demo- cratic, and left permanent social results in the new state.
1 In New York city the property of John Watts, Sr., was purchased by John Watts, Jr., and Robert Watts. Eleanor Blauw bought the estate of Waldron Blauw. Anna White took the lot of her attainted husband. Rachel Weather- head did the same for John Weatherhead. Henry White, Sr.'s, property was bid in by Henry White, Jr. Such cases appeared in every district.
CHAPTER VIII
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
ALTHOUGH the war virtually ended in 1781, the fate of the loyalists was not definitely determined until the treaty of peace in 1783. They had staked all upon the success of the British arms, and had stubbornly opposed every suggestion of concession or compromise. Lord North's terms of peace were suicidal in their eyes.' Nothing short of complete victory and a restoration of the old colonial government would satisfy them, because nothing less than that would restore their own political power, save their property and punish their rebellious persecutors. The re-establishment of British supremacy after the Declaration of Independence was absolutely essential to loyalist prosperity. To the very last, in England and America, they urged war and insisted that the revolutionists were on the verge of defeat. When the English cause was lost, and with it their own, they attributed it entirely to wicked ministers and shamefully incompetent generals. The treaty of peace, therefore, sounded the death-knell of their fondest hopes.2 Little could they expect from their triumphant kinsmen, and henceforth they were forced to rely upon the gratitude and generosity of the mother country for which they had sacrificed native land, property, comforts and life itself.
1 Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of the Am. Rev., i, 317-324.
2 One loyalist wrote that nothing was left them but " the consciousness of having done their duty." Can. Archs. (1888), 834, Sherwood to Mathews, March 10, 1783; " Everything looks gloomy for the loyalists," he wrote at another time .. Ibid., 838, April 19, 1783.
161]
161
162
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [162
In concluding the treaty of peace with the victorious United States, the English government made an honest effort to provide for those loyal subjects in America who had lost all for the crown and the empire.1 Shelburne really expected that the loyalists would be protected by the treaty, though he was far from being satisfied with its terms,' while the American envoys knew that the provisions respect- ing the loyalists would never be carried out. The fourth article stipulated that creditors on each side should " meet with no lawful impediment" to recover all good debts in sterling money. By the fifth article, it was agreed that the Congress of the United States should " earnestly recom- mend " to the states the restoration of the rights and posses- sions of "real British subjects," and of loyalists who had not borne arms against their countrymen. All other loyalists were to be given liberty to go into any state within twelve months to adjust their affairs and to recover their confiscated property upon paying the purchasers the sale-price. The sixth article stated that no future confiscations should be made, that imprisoned loyalists should be released, and that no further persecutions should be permitted.3
The Americans regarded the loyalists with greater aversion than they did the English, and looked upon them as both fools and traitors. Although victorious, they could not for- give, much less forget, the course of their former friends and neighbors, who had disagreed with them honestly and fear- lessly about what was best for America. Congress sent the
1 The loyalists who knew the hostility of their victorious countrymen thought that the terms would not be enforced. Can. Archs. (1895), xiii. Cf. Instructions to Carleton about the restoration of loyalist property, ibid. (1885), Feb. 16, 1783; cf. ibid. (1887), 164, for the case of Van Allen, who went to Albany to collect his debts, May 31, 1783.
' Parl. Hist. of Eng., xxiii, 411.
* Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of the Am. Rev., vol. 6, 96. Parl. Hist. of Eng., xxiii, 354.
163
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
163]
" recommendations " to the states, but professed to have no power to enforce them. New York felt no obligation to re- restore "tory" lands and to receive their owners as fellow- citizens. These provisions of the treaty were repudiated and the legislature declared that forfeited and sequestrated prop- erty ought not be returned, since England offered no com- pensation for property which had been destroyed.' Loyal- ists who returned under the treaty of peace were insulted, tarred and feathered, whipped and even " ham-stringed."> The grand jury indicted before the supreme court about a thousand of the richest loyalists for treason.3 Although every effort was made to drive the loyalists out of the land, to prevent their return and to effectually suppress those who did come back as well as those who remained, still the loyalists were so numerous in some sections that they were able to carry on a bitter political contest.4 In 1783 they voted for governor and other officers." But an effort was soon made to deprive them of the franchise and thus to greatly dimin- ish their influence. The act of May 12, 1784, declared that all who had held office under the British, or helped to fit out vessels of war, or who had served as privates or officers, or had joined the British, or had left the state, to be guilty of "misprison of treason " and disqualified from both franchise and office.6 This is said to have excluded from voting two- thirds of the inhabitants of New York city, Richmond and Kings counties, one-fifth of those of Suffolk county, nine-
1 Journal of Senate (1784), p. 14; Jones, Hist of N. Y., ii, 494.
1 Ibid., ii, 244, 505; Can. Archs. (1888), 840, 841, 843 (1890), 158 (1889), 72, 77.
' Jones, Hist. of N. Y., ii, 251.
'Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 71.
5 Ibid., 62.
& Jones, Hist. of N. Y., ii, 248; Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 127; Laws of N. Y., i, 772. For a description of the three parties in New York in 1784, cf. Jay, Life of Fay, ii, 145.
164
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [164
tenths of Queens county, and all of the borough of West- chester. When a tax of £150,000, payable in gold and silver, was levied in 1785, the whigs escaped easily, and the burden fell upon the loyalists.1 By this and other measures the former domestic foes, though tolerated, were eliminated as a factor in New York politics.2 In 1782, debts due loyalists were cancelled, provided one-fortieth was paid into the state treasury.3 Local committees resolved that the loyalists who were returning to their homes should not be tolerated,+ and the people in general were determined not to allow loyalists to return." The most obnoxious loyalist lawyers were for some years refused the right to practice law.6 That barrier was not removed until April 6, 1786, and then only on con- dition that they take an " oath of abjuration and alleg- iance." 7
Of the New York loyalists, some never left the state, others fled but returned, and still others became permanent exiles. The first class was very large and the least obnox- ious of the three. It was composed of two groups-those who at heart were true to the crown and empire, but had outwardly conformed to the will of congress and to the com- mittees, and those who were avowed loyalists, having re- fused to sign the " association," to obey the revolutionary bodies, and who gave secret aid to the British, but who never took up arms against the Americans. As early as
1 Can. Archs. (1890), 314; cf. Laws of N. Y., i. 707; Jones, Hist. of N. Y., ii, 249-250.
" Ibid., 502-503.
3 Hour. of Assemb., v, 59-60, 73-76, 88-89.
' Can. Archs. (1888), 791, 839, 841. " The committees through the country are determined not to allow the return of loyalists." Ibid., 840. Report of John Cobham, June 3, 1783.
6 Ibid., (1888), 840, 841, 843, (1890), 158.
6 Laws of N. Y., i, 772, Oct. 9, 1779. 1 Ibid., ii, 237.
-
165
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
165]
1776 many under the first head took the oath of allegiance.1 After the war they were looked upon as genuine whigs. When the tide began to turn against the English in 1778, many of the second group took the oath of allegiance and became citizens of the state.2 Severe laws and the harsh measures of the commissioners on conspiracies had a like effect.3 The lot of these persons was not a hard one. Those whose worst crime was open loyalty, who had been arrested, imprisoned, exiled, or paroled, but never charged with treason, were found in every community, and, although sub- jected to more or less abuse, were for the most part allowed to remain after the war was over, and to keep their property. While never fully forgiven, in time they came to be looked upon as true Americans, and were given full political rights. Even some who were strongly suspected, and no doubt were guilty of treason, were allowed to remain because of the intercession of friends or attorneys. The act of May 12, 1784, gave a special permit + to twenty-seven loyalists to re- main in the state. Thousands in southern New York were not molested, because they plead loyalty under stress of British occupation, and were willing to abide by the results, and because no local committees could disprove their asser- tions. They constituted an undoubted majority, so strong that hostile feeling in the localities was not strong enough to mark them for revenge. Still it was complained, January 3, 1785, that " those in New York whose estates have not been
1 Can. Archs. (1888), Haldimand Collection, 642.
1 Ibid., (1889), 113, May 7, 1778; Laws of N. Y. (1886), i, 252 ..
* Ibid., 370.
‘Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y .. i, 127-159. Cadwallader Colden, Richard Harri- son, David Colden, John Watts and others begged the New York Assembly, Feb. 4, 1784, to remove the sentence of banishment against them, but it was then re- fused. MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, i, 345.
166
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [166
confiscated are so loaded with taxes and other grievances that there is nothing left but to sell out and move into the protection of the British government." ' If the petitions of loyalists to the crown for compensation for property losses through loyalty be taken as a basis for comparison, the pro- portion of loyalists who 'emigrated from the counties above New York city, as contrasted with those in the southern part of the state, was as 439 to 27. During the war loyalists in the northern counties were so harshly treated that they left the state voluntarily, or they were forcibly removed. They fled to Canada, or to New York, in large numbers. In the metropolis, however, and on Long Island and Staten Is- land, the loyalists remained unmolested during the contest. When peace came the fury of persecution had subsided ; con- sequently, most of them were willing to accept the new order of things. These facts account for the difference in the proportion .?
The loyal refugees who returned to their homes were not so numerous as either the loyalists who never departed, or those who, having departed, never came back; still such in- dividuals appear in all parts of the state. The families of many who had gone to Canada, Nova Scotia or England, continued to reside in New York, preserving their property or endeavoring to recover it, and they thus helped to draw the refugees back. Kind relatives, neighbors and friends in- duced others to return. Genuine love for their native land led many to retrace their footsteps and brave the indignity of their victorious communities. The wilds of Nova Scotia and Canada," the cool reception in England and the refusal
1 Can. Archs. (1890), 314, Augustus Von Horne's letter.
2 MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, vols. 17-22. Albany furnished most of the 466 petitioners, then came Westchester, Tryon, Dutchess, Charlotte, Orange and Cumberland counties in the order named.
Can. Archs. (1889), 79; cf. ibid. (1886), 411.
167]
167
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
of the British government adequately to reward their loyalty sent many a disappointed "friend of government" back to New York to begin life anew. Phrases such as "the fatal day when I left home," "all I desire is to return and lay my bones in that dear soil," and " I am not welcome here," are found in their letters.' Peter Van Shaack and loyalists of his integrity and character, who both denounced the arbitrary program of Great Britain and feared the results of indepen- dence, who wished to remain neutral, and who, when forced to decide between two evils, went to England "under the stress of double allegiance " to await the end of the war- these persons were welcomed back by all but the extremists. Peter Van Schaack returned in 1784, and by the act of May 12 was restored to full citizenship .? On March 31, 1785, thirty loyalists returned to Queens county from Nova Scotia.3 Similar bands came back to Westchester,' Dutchess, Albany, Tryon and other counties. New York city was a great haven for returned loyalists. There they could move easily, lose their identity and gain a new foothold. Philip R. Frey, Hendrick Frey and Adrian Klock, of Tryon county, were loyalists of another type. They joined the British and served in the king's army, returned after peace was made and were unmolested.5 Few, however, of this character were thus favored. "Many tories came back after the war, but their former neighbors . usually made the atmos- phere so close for them that not a few fled precipitately back to Canada, some with and some without scourging, while
1 Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of Am. Rev., i, 313.
1 Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 403; Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 127-149.
' Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 68.
" Baird, History of Rye, 265; cf. Case of William Hunt, of North Castle, who was sued and imprisoned as a "Cow Boy." Sabine, American Loyalists, 557.
5 Simms, Frontiersmen of N. Y., 99, 100, 344: Sabine, American Loyalists, 448.
168
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [168
here and there one was suffered to remain, though unhon- ored and hardly noticed by those who had been their warm- est friends before the war."" In 1784 the Albany jail was reported to be full of tories, who were whipped and perse- cuted.2 The statement was made in letters from Canada that the loyalists were "daily coming in from the states to avoid persecutions."3 One Becraft, a Schoharie tory, who had taken part in the cruel border warfare, came back, was whipped nearly to death by ten men and warned never to return.4 Abraham C. Cuyler, ex-mayor of Albany and major of a loyal battalion, returned to Albany, but soon fled to Canada.5 Alexander Hamilton, as counsel, gave it as his opinion, when Cuyler applied for leave to return to New York to recover his property under the protection of the treaty of peace, that it would be very dangerous personally and that there was no prospect of the restoration of his property.6 The inhabitants were urged to avoid returned loyalists "as persons contaminated with the most dreadful contagion," and to let them remain, as they justly merit, "vagabonds on the face of the earth." 7
The third class, those who expatriated themselves forever, was very numerous and included the flower of the loyalist party. They continued true British subjects, though exiled to various parts of the world. They were found in England, Ireland, Scotland, Nova Scotia, in various parts of Canada and even in the islands of the sea.8 Many of them were driven out by persecution, others fled through fear, but most of
1 Simms, Frontiersmen of N. Y., 344.
' Can. Archs. (1888), Haldimand Collection, 840, 841, 844.
* Ibid. (1886), 429, May 31, 1784; ibid. (1887), 367.
"Sabine, Loyalists of the Am. Rev., i, 223.
Ibid., 356.
6 Can. Archs. (1895), State Papers, Cape Breton, I, Feb. 13, 1784; ibid. (1887), 1 Ibid. (1887), 242-243, April 17, 1783. xiv.
8 Bahamas, Newfoundland, etc.
169
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
them left at the close of the war because their cause had been lost. They loved British institutions, were true to their oaths of loyalty, dreaded the scorn and contempt of their victorious brothers, hated republicanism, loved adventure, and wished to help preserve the integrity of the British em- pire.1 Some received offices, pensions and lands from the British government.
The flight of New York loyalists began as early as 1774 and continued during ten years,? The causes of this move- ment varied with different groups and at different periods. To escape the vengeance of a New York mob, Dr. Myles Cooper, president of King's College, was forced to leave in May, 1775. In company with several other Episcopal clergymen, he went to England and never returned.3 Rep- resentatives of the other professions, lawyers and physicians, also to an extent took the same course. The loyalist sol- diers who joined the British in Canada and Boston in that year, formed another group.4 When the war closed they settled in various parts of the British dominions. Rich merchants, like James Jauncey and William Bayard, formed another group that retired to England early in the contest. Closely allied with them were the great land-owners, like
' " No loyalist of principle could endure to live under the imperious laws of Washington and his minions," declared a " friend of government," March 10, 1783. Can. Archs. (1888), 834.
" One Alpheus Avery was forced to flee from Westchester county in 1774 because he was a " tory." He entered the British navy and later asked for compensation. But it was decided that he had no claim. MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. v.
3 Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 82. Dr. T. H. Chandler was one of them. Sa- bine, American Loyalists, 166.
' Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 562, 563, 680; Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 234- 244, 886, iii, 274, 294, 331-333, iv, 48; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 457-459, 1305, 1311-1315, 1719, 1761, 1900, iv, 187, 1117, vi, 1032; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 333.
170
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [170
James De Lancey' of New York city, who crossed the ocean never to return. Still another body of voluntary exiles were the royal officials. They began to leave America in 1775, but the larger part remained in New York city or Canada until the struggle ceased, when nearly all went to Great Britain .? Supplementing these five classes were the common people-the farmers, mechanics, laborers and small tradesmen-who began to emigrate in 1776, continued the process throughout the war, and departed in large numbers after 1783.
Early in 1777 the Convention ordered the " commissioners on conspiracies" to compel loyalists either to take the oath of allegiance, or to remove with their families within the British lines.3 This marked the beginning of legally en- forced exile by the wholesale for the crime of loyalism, and the measure was vigorously enforced.4 A second law strength- ened the act in April, 1778, and made banishment perpetual after Jnly 18, 1778.5 Neutrality was impossible, for every person had to announce his political principles and alle- giance. All loyalists who refused to perjure themselves for the sake of safety were banished and forfeited their property. Many swallowed their convictions, took the required oath, and remained unmolested. The test was severe and separ- ated the wheat from the chaff. By July, 1778, about a thousand loyalists were receiving provisions in Canada-209 at St. Johns, 208 at Montreal, 196 at Machiche, 126 at
1 Sabine, Loyalists of the Am. Rev., i, 367.
: Ibid., 661. The case of John Tabor Kempe, the attorney general, is a good example.
3 Four. of Prov. Conv., i, 827, 855.
MS. Min. of Comsrs. on Conspiracies, i, 108, 117, 122, 123, 124; Four. of Assemb., iii, 16, 29, 36; Can. Archs. (1888), 776.
5 Greenleaf, Laws of IV. Y., i, 22-24; cf. Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 485-487; cf. Can. Archs. (1888), 780, Carleton to Van Schaick, Oct., 1780; ibid., 782, Clinton to Haldimand, March 27, 1781.
171]
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS
171
Pointe Claire, 87 at Sorel and 27 at Chambly.' This num- ber included men, women and children,2 but no soldiers. No doubt there were more who cared for themselves. The number banished to New York city must have been larger. With the decline of British power after 1778, the laws against loyalists increased in severity. The act of attainder of 1779 put fifty-nine of the wealthiest under the ban, and forbade their return under penalty of death.3 Between 1779 and 1783 hundreds were "convicted " of treason and banished by decree of the supreme court of the state. The failure of both the imperial and loyalist cause, and the re- fusal of the states to enforce the provisions for loyalists in the treaty of peace, produced the final great exodus.
The New York loyalists for the most part went to one of three places - England, Nova Scotia or Canada. They began to cross the Atlantic in 1775, and continued to do so for a decade. Those who took this course were persons in high civil office, like John Tabor Kempe, Judge Thomas Jones, William Axtell, Andrew Elliot and Abraham C. Cuy- ler ; military officers of advanced rank, like Oliver DeLancey, John Harris Cruger and Archibald Hamilton ; men of wealth, like James DeLancey and James Jauncey; Anglican clergy- men, like Dr. Myles Cooper and Dr. Thomas B. Chandler ; and professional men, like Peter Van Schaack. They repre- sented the aristocracy, and before and after the treaty of peace went to England to secure safety and compensation.
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.