USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > Part 3
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
When that Congress, supported in New York by classes which on the whole were aristocratic, anti-revolutionary and commercial, was diverted from its original purposes, the Sons of Liberty continued to give it hearty support," the farmers
' Not a voice in the city was raised against the recent acts of Congress. Sea- bury, Free Thoughts, etc., 21, 22.
' They applauded as if " There a regular American Constitution was to be estab- lished and our liberties and privileges fixed on a foundation so stable that neither Lord North nor Old Time himself should ever make any impression on them." Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 12.
30
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [30
remained indifferent or became hostile, while the extreme "friends of government" became open and pronounced in their opposition.' The liberal loyalists who had joined the whigs in convening Congress were divided.2 One part joined Colden, the De Lanceys and the Anglican pamphleteers in order to oppose the revolutionary program; the other acquiesced in the measures of Congress and served in extra- legal bodies to enforce them until moderate resistance devel- oped into confessed revolution with independence as its ob- ject, when most of them were driven into the ranks of the loyalist party.
The loyalist now had a positive part to play. While on the one hand he was opposed to revolution, on the other, he was not satisfied with the pretensions of parliament. His duty, therefore, was plainly to propose terms of an " accom- modation" with the parent country," which would secure "the settlement of an American constitution" with colonial self-government under a sovereign, imperial parliament.4 But this, the loyalists insisted, could not be done through despotic committees," which enforced laws made at Phila- delphia, and collected money without consent, but only through the provincial assembly.6 Hence New York loyal- ists felt under obligations to repudiate congress, to refuse to sign the association and to carry out their program through their local representatives. 7
It was not until after the first Continental Congress that
1 Shown in all the loyalist pamphlets.
2 Many who worked hard to elect delegates were the foremost now in denouncing the results. Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 18.
3 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 52-59.
4 Seabury, A View of the Controversy, etc., 21-23.
5 Seabury, An Alarm, etc., 4, 5.
6 Ibid., 7, 8; Am. Archs., 4 ser., i, 1211-1213. " To the Americans."
7 Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? etc., 41-43.
3I
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
31]
an unmistakable meaning was attached to the party names, whig and loyalist.1 Political organization was complete by that time, though not final. The loyalist party had been formed out of those social, religious, political and commercial tendencies which appeared here and there during more than a century of colonial history and had come to be marked characteristics. Antecedent groups and factions made the transition easier, since they contained the essential elements of loyalism and paved the way for the party as it came into existence in 1774. The Continental Congress gave a definite form to the organization and furnished a general platform for action, but complete unification did not come until the act of separation.
In character the loyalists have been judged too harshly on the one hand, and too leniently on the other. Most Amer- ican historians have characterized them as unprincipled royal office-holders, scheming political trimmers, a few aristocratic landlords and merchants, who were fearful of losing their wealth and indifferent to the rights of man, together with their dependents, and the preachers and teachers of the An- glican church. Not a few English historians take this same view. These writers look upon them as a negative force in the revolutionary movement without any positive program and as unqualified supporters of England's conduct. The loyalists themselves and their apologists, on the contrary, have asserted that their ranks included all the best, the wealthiest, the most educated and those of highest social rank in the colony. Both of these views are partly right, but mostly wrong. Among the loyalists were all grades of worth and unworthiness, as among the whigs.
The loyalists may be divided into the following general classes :
' Cf. Am. Archs., 4 ser., v, 845; cf. N'. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, iii, 417.
32
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [32
1. Royal officials-governors,1 lieutenant-governors,2 coun- cillors,3 many assemblymen,4 judges," military and naval offi- cers,6 and other royal agents' on down to the petty district squires.º These persons were led by a variety of motives- self-interest, official bias, fidelity to oaths, and conviction of duty. They formed a powerful network of loyalists over the
1 William Tryon.
2 Cadwallader Colden and Andrew Elliot.
$ William Axtell, John Harris Cruger, Oliver De Lancey, James Jauncey. Jr., Roger Morris, William Smith, Hugh Wallace, John Watts and Henry White.
+ James De Lancey, John De Lancey, John Cruger, James Jauncey, John Rapa- lje, Jacob Walton, Frederick Phillipse, Daniel Kissam, Simon Boerum, Peter Van Cortlandt, John Coe, Zebulum Williams, Benjamin Seaman, Samuel Gale, Christo- pher Billopp, Samuel Wells, etc.
3 Thomas Jones, G. Banyar, Richard Floyd, Jonathan Fowler, Joseph Lord, Noah Sabin, H. P. Valentine and Samuel Wells.
" Sir Samuel Auchmuty, Capt. Ball, Col. George Brewerton, Ensign Elisha Budd, Capt. Bull, Col. John Butler, Col. Thomas Chandler, Col. Isaac Corsa, Capt. Oliver De Lancey, Jr., Capt. Richard Hewlett, Major D. Kissam, Capt. Lewis McDonald, Capt. Charles Cornell, etc.
7 George Clark, Sec. of N. Y .; Alex. Colden, Surv. Gen .; Richard C. Colden, Surveyor and Searcher of Customs of N. Y. city; Abraham C. Cuyler, Mayor of Albany; James De Lancey, Sheriff of Westchester county; Andrew Elliott, Col- lector of Customs; Samuel Gale, Court Clerk of Cumberland county; John Tabor Kempe, Attorney General; Abraham Lott, Treasurer; Maurice Lott, Sheriff of Queens county; Cary Ludlow, Surrogate and Master of Chancery; David Math- ews, Mayor of N. Y. city; James McEvers, Stamp Master; John Moore, Deputy Collector of Customs; William Patterson, Sheriff of Cumberland county; Philip Skeene, Lieutenant-Governor of Crown Point and Ticonderoga; John Thompson, Chamberlain of New York city; Alex. White, Sheriff of Tryon county; William Knox, Sec. of N. Y., etc.
* Bartholomew Crannell, Public Notary in N. Y. city; James Harper, Justice of the Peace in Queens county; Daniel Kissam, a magistrate; Peter Meetin, Magis- trate of N. Y. city; Lambert Moore, Notary Public; John Collin, Magistrate of Tryon county; Stephen Tuttle, Justice of the Peace for Albany county. MS., Transcript of . . . Books and Papers . . . of American Loyalists, vol. i, pp .. 195-196, gives a list of 32 civil officers for New York, Oct. 7, 1783. Cf. John Adams' Diary for August 22, 1774, which gives a general view of the factions of loyalists in New York.
33
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
33]
province, were so many centers of influence advocating loyalism and gave political organization to the loyalist party. They were the most powerful and at the same time the most active class.
2. Large landed proprietors with their tenants-like the Johnsons, the De Lanceys, Roger Morris, the Skeenes, the Jessups, Frederick Phillipse and others.1 At heart and by habit they were true aristocrats and denunciators of the dem- ocratic movement. They were loyal to the crown because of received and anticipated favors, their material interests were connected with the established order of things, and their convictions tended to loyalism. A few of this class were inactive during the war, but most of them unhesitatingly joined arms with Great Britain against the revolution. An undoubted majority of this group were loyalists.
3. Professional classes-lawyers,? physicians, 3 teachers ' and ministers.5 A very large proportion of these persons were loyalists-some from a sense of duty, others because
1 The Crugers, Joneses, De Puysters, Waltons, Robinsons, Baches, Wattses, Rapaljes, Floyds, Purdys, Cuylers, Van Cortlandts, Bayards, etc.
" Among them were Crean Brush, Cumberland co .; Walter N. Butler and Ben- jamin Hilton, Albany Co .; Benjamin Kissam, David Matthews, John C. Knapp, D. G. Ludlow, Lindley Murray, Isaac Ogden and Beverly Robinson, Jr., of New York city; John L. Roome and Peter Van Schaack.
" Among the physicians were Dr. Azor Betts, Dr. Adams, Dr. Richard Bonsall, Dr. Magra, Dr. Alexander Kellock, Dr. Peter Huggeford, Dr. Peter Middleton, Dr. William Moore, Dr. R. H. Auchmuty, Dr. S. Bard, Dr. R. Bayley, Dr. Barrant Roorback, Dr. George Smith and Dr. Henry Van Buren.
' Education was controlled largely by the Episcopal Church. Among the edu- cators were Dr. Myles Cooper, Prof. Alexander Girard and Dr. Samuel Classey, of King's College; James Harper, of Queens co .; Mr. Ritzema, of Tarrytown; Dr. Samuel Seabury, of Westchester.
' Those of the Anglican church were all loyalists. Benjamin Abbott and Thomas Rankin were Methodist clergymen, Mathias Burnett was a Presbyterian parson of Queens co., John Mackenna was a Roman Catholic priest, Domine Rubell was of the Dutch Reformed church, and Bernard Houseal and John M. Kern were Luth- erans.
34
[34
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK
of a distrust of the success of the revolution, a few through a hope of reward, and many on account of an alliance with royal officials and the aristocracy.
4. The wealthy commercial classes, mostly in New York City and Albany, whose interests were affected first and most by civil war. They were anxious for the victory of the American interpretation of the British constitution and there- fore championed the revolutionary movement in its early stages, but opposed war and independence on principle and on business grounds.1
5. Conservative farmers in all parts of the colony, but especially in Queens, Kings, Richmond, Westchester, Albany and Tryon counties. They were happy and prosperous under the old regime. They did not feel the burdens com- plained of by the revolutionists, and consequently, had no sympathy with whig principles. But when their incomes were injured by the edicts of congress and committees and by war, their eyes turned toward the king's army to restore their former peace and security.
6. Colonial politicians, who neither cared for nor even saw any principle involved in the contest. They changed sides with the greatest ease as victory, and with it the hope of re- ward, passed from the English to the American side, or the reverse. With nothing to lose and everything to gain, policy made them loyalists.2
1 Leading loyalists of this type were James Duane, Isaac Low, A. Van Dorn, William McAdam, William Walton, Isaac Corsa, Robert Murray, John Moore' William Laight, Theophylact Bache, Thomas Buchanan, William Seton, Thomas Miller, Edward Laight, Hugh Wallace, Gabriel H. Ludlow, William Steeple, Henry White, Benjamin Booth, Alexander Wallace, Robert R. Waddel, Richard Yates, Gerard Walton, August Von Horne, lawrence Kartright and John Alsop. Cf. N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., 2 ser., vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 381, etc.
' Am. Archs., 5 ser., i, 40, ii, 967-970; cf. Rivington's Royal Cacette, July 7, 1779; cf. Allen, The Am. Rev., i, 417, 483, 554, 571. Capt. David Fenton was a fair example of this class of loyalists.
1788970
35]
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 35
7. Conservative masses, of no trades and all trades, of all grades of wealth, education and social position, in all parts of the province, who through loyalty, religion, interest or in- fluence disapproved of independence. Loyalists of this char- acter were found in every village, district, city and county in New York. They formed the great majority of the loyalist party. They were not conspicuous for wealth, social influ- ence, office, professional prominence, or active hostility ; hence in thousands of cases they were not known outside of their respective localities. They formed a large part of the loyalist soldiers and sailors, carried out the will of their lead- ers and made loyalism an efficient force in coping with the revolution.1
Thus it appears that the loyalists of New York had within their ranks persons of all social positions from that of the poor emigrant but recently come to America, to the oldest and wealthiest family in the colony; of all grades of intelligence from the ignorant agriculturist to the presi- dent of the only college in the province ; of all lines of work from the humble cobbler and blacksmith to the most cele- brated lawyer and physician in the metropolis ;2 of all creeds ; and actuated by all motives from the basest material greed to the loftiest sense of religious duty and highest type of
1 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., ii, 437, gives a list of thousands of " signers," who were loyalists, with their race and trade. The diversity of occupation is quite striking. Other lists of the rank and file of loyalists show the same variety in vocations.
1 Out of a list of 17 Orange co. loyalists, there was a tanner, a tavern-keeper, several servants, a saddler, a silversmith, a gunsmith, a constable, a soldier, and a shoemaker. Cal. of N. Y. Hist., MSS., i, 351. On April 15, 1776, a return of prisoners in the New York city jail gave 3 soldiers, 8 sailors, 2 pilots, 2 naval offi- cers, a hatter, a farmer, an oysterman and an armorer. Out of 117 petitioners to the British government asking for compensation for losses through loyalty, 35 were farmers, 20 were laborers, 22 were widows mostly of loyalist soldiers, 17 were crown officers, 12 were merchants, 4 were doctors, 4 were clergymen, 2 were sailors and I was a lawyer. MS., Transcript of . . . Books and Papers . . . of Am. Loyalists," vols. 17-22.
Г
36
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [36
patriotism. The party included most of the leaders in culture, religion and society, many of the solid business men and also much of the brawn and muscle of the common people.
The loyalists were not a party wholly of negation and ob- struction. They differed from the whigs in the method, pro- cess and scope of reform only in degree. They loved their country, they fought for it when both sides appealed to the sword, and they died for it. When the Declaration of Inde- pendence became the thoroughly understood issue between the whigs and loyalists, it soon became manifest that politi- cal principles were more potent than religious creeds, race,' family ties,2 or social rank. Although the party was pre- dominantly Anglican in its faith," still Methodists, Catholics,' Presbyterians,5 Lutherans" and Quakers' were found among the loyalists.8 The vast majority were Englishmen, but there were also many Irish, Scotch, Germans, Dutch, French, In- dians and Negroes true to the British flag.
1 Out of 363 petitioners to the king for compensation for losses, 200 were native Americans, 60 were Scotch, 40 were Irish, 30 were English, 28 were Germans, 2 were Welch, 2 were French and I was a Hollander. MS., Transcript of . . . Books and Papers . . . of Am. Loyalists, vols. 17-22.
2 These families were divided-the De Lanceys, the Livingstons, the Van Schaacks, the Crugers, the Morrises, the Youngs, the Boyntons, the Van Cort- landts, the Floyds, the Lows, the Herkimers, the Jays and the Subers.
" The whole congregation of Trinity church went to Nova Scotia with their ven- erable pastor. The United Empire Loyalist Centennial (1884), IIO. Address by William Kirby, Esq. Ibid., III. Can. Archs. (1894), 407, Carleton to North, Aug. 26, 1783.
" Many of the Irish loyalists were Catholics.
5 MS., Transcript of . . . Books and Papers . . of Am. Loyalists, vol. 18, p. 81.
6 Rev. John M. Kern was a German Lutheran minister. Ibid., vol. 19, p. 389.
" Gordon, War in America, i, 223; Allen, Am. Rev., i, 571; MS., Associations and Miscl. Papers, 63, 469; Am. Archs., 4 ser., iii, 707, 883, iv, 780-787, v, 826, 872, vi, 1055; Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 27, 67.
6 Can. Archs. (1896), 76; The United Empire Loyalists Centennial (1884), III. Sir John Johnson's Royal Regiment of New York, consisting of 8co, were mostly Lutherans and Presbyterians. Croil, A Sketch of Canad'. Hist. (1861), p. 128.
CHAPTER II
FINAL ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
THE loyalist opposition to Congress and its " recommend - ations" was soon felt in every section of New York. In some localities it was manifested only in sentiment, while in others it took the form of united action. This hostility did not mean, necessarily, that England's course was approved, but, for the most part, simply indicated that the loyalists did not sanction whig methods of seeking the redress of griev- ances. In Queens county the authority assumed by the New York city committee was wholly ignored.1 To offset some whig resolves of December 6, 1774,2 and the appointment by the whigs of a committee, the Jamaica loyalists issued a pro- test signed by 91 of the 160 freeholders in the township and "45 other very respectable inhabitants," January 27, 1775.3 At Newtown 56 loyalists signed a similar protest." The Oyster Bay loyalists outnumbered the whigs and prevented action.5 The same thing happened at Flushing.6
Suffolk county was almost unanimously whig. There were not more than a dozen loyalists in the whole county." Kings county, full of easy-going Dutch, who were passive loyalists, repudiated the acts of Congress by silently ignoring
1 Onderdonk, Queens County, 16. 2 Ibid., 14. $ Ibid., 17.
' Rivington's Gazetteer, no. 92, Jan. 12, 1775; Ricker, Annals of Newtown, 175-178; Onderdonk, Queens County, 17-20.
6 Ibid., 20. 6 Ibid., 21; cf. Memoirs of the L. I. Hist. Soc., 268.
1 Flint, Early Long Island, 340; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 117; cf. Stiles, Hist. of Kings Co., i, 32.
37]
37
38
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [38
them.' Most of Staten Island was loyalist, but no decisive action was taken.2
Westchester county disapproved of the acts of Congress and disregarded the New York city committee entirely. At White Plains 45 freeholders suppressed the whig movement.8 The loyalists of Rye were outspoken and pugnacious.4 Both parties were very busy in Ulster county. The whigs carried the day, but the loyalists at Showangunk were especially active.5 From the first the loyalists of Dutchess county re- pudiated committees and congresses." After Congress laid down a program they refused to follow it.7 In Albany county the loyalists of Kings district resolved to obey the law and to resist all efforts to violate it.8 In Tryon county the loyalists, led by Sir William Johnson, practically con- trolled the situation and held the German whigs at bay.9
With insufficient data, it is impossible to say just how many in the province advocated peaceable means of redress and what number favored force and violence as a means of securing their rights and privileges. Certainly New York was far from unanimously favoring the harsher course, and it is even a question whether a majority held this idea. Early in 1775 Colden asserted that a " good majority" of the most respect-
1 Onderdonk, Revolutionary Incidents, etc., Preface; Stiles, Hist. of Brooklyn, i, 243; Flint, Early Long Island, 340; Ostrander, Hist. of Brooklyn and Kings Co., i, 208-211.
2 Brooks, Hist. Records of Staten Island; Clute, Centennial of Northfield, 13; Tyson, Lecture on the Hist. of Staten Island, 9; Holt's N. Y. Journal, no. 1676; Am. Arch., 4th ser., i, 1249.
3 Cf. Dawson, Westchester County, 36-40.
4 Baird, History of Rye, 222.
5 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 1230.
6 Ibid., 702-703. 1 Ibid., 1164. 8 Ibid., 1063.
9 Campbell, Annals of Tryon County, 31-35; Benton, Hist. of Herkimer County, 66-67.
39
39]
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
able people urged peace and discountenanced violence.1 But radicals north and south of New York were trying her moderation, for it was hard to resist the contagious enthus- iasm "when propagated by every artifice."? Still the gov- ernor believed that the people were not inclined to copy the "extravagant schemes " of other colonies.3 He certainly had many reasons for his belief.
The loyalists refused to recognize Congress as either en- titled to obedience, or possessed of the power to exact it. As it could only recommend, they felt free to reject its re- commendations. The leaders urged that course and advised all to place their hope in the general assembly, their lawful representatives.+ The loyalist pamphleteer, Seabury, best stated the attitude of his party in " An Alarm to the Legis- lature." "A foreign power is brought to govern this pro- vince," he wrote. "Laws made at Philadelphia . . . are imposed upon us by the most imperious menaces. Money is levied upon us without the consent of our representatives Mobs and riots are encouraged, in order to force sub- mission to the tyranny of Congress. . . . To you, gentle- men, the good people of this province look for relief; on you they have fixed their hopes ; from you they expect de- liverance from this intolerable state of slavery. . . . If you assert your dignity, if you maintain your own rights and privileges, we shall again be a free and happy, and, I trust, not an ungrateful people. . . . If laws made and decrees passed at Philadelphia, by the enthusiastic republicans of New England and Virginia, are to bind the people of this
1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 378.
2 Ibid., 378, 387.
$ Ibid., 390.
'Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 48-49; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 46-48; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 42-43: Onderdonk, Queens County, 17; Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 702-703; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877) 374-375.
40
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [40
province, and extort money from them, why, gentlemen, do you meet? Is it barely to register their edicts, and rivet the , fetters of their tyranny on your constituents? . . . Your duty requires you to interpose your authority, and to break up this horrid combination of seditious men, which has already enslaved this province, and which was intended to draw the faithful subjects of our most gracious sovereign into rebellion and civil war." 1
The last session of the general assembly began January 13, 1775.2 The loyalists watched it with anxious hearts and largely dictated its course of procedure. Colden's opening message was an earnest prayer that its members would fol- low a wise, moderate course, which would secure a "perma- nent reconciliation." 3 This they solemnly promised ' in a "loyal and affectionate address." " The governor, council and assembly were in accord in their desire to secure peace and avert civil war, and gave expression to the sentiment of the entire loyalist party.
In the assembly the moderate loyalists had a solid major- ity, and consequently all the radical measures of the whigs were voted down.6 The lower house refused to consider the recommendations of Congress,7 to thank the merchants for obeying the non-intercourse acts,8 and to select delegates to
1 An Alarm, etc., 4-8.
' N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 382.
' N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 4.
‘ Ibid., 14.
5 Ibid., 12; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 384.
6 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 18, 28, 37, 38, 40, 44-45; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 46-48; Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 1188, 1203; Jones, Hist. of New York, i, 36-37; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Cot. Hist., viii, 532; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 381, 383, 386, 389.
7 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 36-37.
8 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 40.
41]
41
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
the second Continental Congress.1 The loyalist majority declared that their " allegiance to George III., was the same as if they were in England." They admitted that they owed "obedience to all acts of parliament ... for the general weal," but insisted upon the right of personal representation before taxation.2 This, it was believed, would lead to recon- ciliation.3
The "loyal petition" to the king, the memorial to the House of Lords and the remonstrance to the Commons em- bodied the true political views of the great mass of moderate loyalists. The pamphlets of Seabury, Wilkins, Inglis, Cooper and Chandler expressed the feelings of the church- men and crown officials. The assembly could not recede from the encroachments made on the royal prerogatives. The American interpretation of the British constitution was stated in a clear, dignified manner.
Parliament was acknowledged " as the grand legislature of the empire,"' and the colonies to be parts of that empire. They recognized the "supreme, regulating power" of par- liament, but denied its right to bind "in all cases whatso- ever," for that would make them slaves.' Hence "the line of parliamentary authority and American freedom" must be found and then firmly established "on just, equitable and constitutional grounds." 6
Since 1691 New York had had a measure of home-rule, with a local tax-granting assembly. Therefore, it was held that contributions to the imperial government could be se- cured only through the assembly of the province:1 The
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.