USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > Part 4
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
1 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, part 8), 44-45; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 543.
' N. Y. Assemb. Fourn. (1766-1776, 8th part), 59-64.
' N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 387.
. N. Y. Assemb. Fourn. (1766-1776, 8th part), 109.
5 Ibid., 112.
" Ibid., 114-117. 7 Ibid., 110.
7
42
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [42
scheme to tax America without the assent of the assemblies was branded as an "innovation."1 To restore peace, ac- quired rights must be recognized.2 At the same time they were quite willing to admit that parliament could act for the "general weal of the empire, and the due regulation of the trade and commerce thereof."
" The honest, though disorderly, struggles for liberty " on the part of the revolutionists were condemned." They had no desire for independence, and emphatically denied charges to the contrary.4 They yearned for reconciliation, with the constitutional rights and privileges, which they felt they had enjoyed for almost a century, guaranteed to them.
This was the last attempt in New York to secure by legal means the rights to which the colonists considered them- selves entitled under the British constitution. It failed and gave way to a revolutionary procedure which the king and parliament could not recognize. The loyalists, after this, centered their hopes first in the leniency and justice of the sovereign power, and finally, in the strong arm of force. The whigs based their expectations upon ultra-legal con- gresses, conventions and committees, later on civil war, and ultimately on independence.
The committee of inspection and observation, appointed to enforce the decrees of congress," proposed the election of delegates to the next Continental Congress.7 The loyalists had had a surfeit of revolutionary congresses and decided, if possi- ble, to thwart the election.$ In a mass meeting of both factions
1 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 114-115. 2 Ibid., III.
$ Ibid., 109, 114.
4. Ibid., 115-117.
5 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 513.
6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 372, 373.
7 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i. 480; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 4.
8 Am. Arch, 4th ser., ii, 44-46, 48, 49-50; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 395.
43]
43
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
in New York City the loyalists were defeated.1 The next step was to send deputies to a convention for the purpose of electing delegates to congress .? This was strenuously op- posed by the loyalists. In Ulster county they protested that the election of deputies was not sanctioned by a hun- dredth part of the inhabitants.3 In Westchester county hundreds objected to sending representatives.' The Queens county loyalists outvoted the whigs on all occasions, but did not prevent the minority from sending deputies.5 Three- fourths of Dutchess county disapproved of the convention.6 Staten Island almost unanimously refused to send deputies.7 The Kings county loyalists were indifferent.8
The Provincial Convention was the first revolutionary body in New York which acted as a legislature. It was called because the loyalist assembly had refused to approve of the acts of congress.9 The proposition to call it came from the whigs alone. The loyalists opposed its call both on constitutional and party grounds, but were defeated, partly through the fear or indifference of many of their own members.
The skirmish at Lexington, following on the heels of the
' Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 481-483; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 49, 138.
' Jones, Ilist. of N. Y., i, 484-486; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 138.
' Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MISS., i, 22-23.
" Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 282, 314-322, 323-324; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., 1, 20-21.
Ibid., 38-39, 40, 41; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 273-275; Min. of Prov. Conv., i, 2, 7.
" Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 41. The whigs denied this statement and placed the number at one-half or one-third. - Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 176, 304-305.
Ibid., 313.
· Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 41-42.
' N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 389-390; N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, Sth part), 44-45.
44
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [44
Provincial Convention, was another sad blow to the loyalists. It put the mob in power. The "friends of government" now came to be despised and maltreated. Rivington, the loyalist printer, was forced to recant. President Cooper had to flee before a mob. Others followed his example, so that the city of New York was soon rid of the loyalist leaders, while the rest of the party became quiet through fear.1 "It was with much difficulty that the people were prevented from taking the lives of those whom they have considered as traitors to their country." ? Colden was powerless,3 and had to admit that the province was in a "state of anarchy and confusion."+ "A committee has assumed the whole power of government," he complained,5 and retired to his farm on Long Island. The loyalists were broken-hearted. Until Lexington they had hoped to win through the assembly. They could not believe that civil war was upon them. Sev- eral left for England "with hopes . .. to stop the effusion of blood, and the horrors and calamities of a civil war, which has already had such terrifying effects."7
The committee of one hundred which had been elected May 1, 1775, conservative though it was, led New York into armed resistance. The genuine loyalists denounced it, but the moderates had countenanced it. Its president was a loyalist.8 Some members never attended and over a third remained away most of the time.9 From the first it exercised judicial powers
? Ibid., 448-449.
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 448.
$ Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 40-41.
N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 404. 5 Ibid., 406. 6 Ibid., 413.
N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 404. Among them were Col. Maunsell, Isaac Wilkins, Col. Morris and Mr. Watts.
8 Isaac Low. For list of members of. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 600; Jones, Hist of N. Y., i, 488.
9 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 898, 933, 940, 409, 410.
محـ
45]
45
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
and acted as a board of censors on obnoxious loyalists,1 while congress and itself were the only bodies which could declare a person a public enemy .? It made arrests, impris- oned and denounced violators of the association,' and after continuing this work for a time finally surrendered its powers to the provincial congress.
The general association, signed by congress October 20, 1774, and sent to the colonies for enforcement, ' had served as a political thermometer to test party spirit in New York. From the first the extreme loyalists denounced this measure. They objected to both the act itself and the methods of enforcing it. They ridiculed the idea of boycotting the whole world in order to get rid of a three-pence duty on tea, and said that the remedy was "ten thousand times worse than the disease." " It was like cutting off your arm to remove a sore on your little finger." It would throw thousands out of work, and riots and acts of violence would result. It would hurt Eng- land, but would be doubly injurious to the colonies and would force them to be the first to yield. Farmers would be the worst sufferers. Prices would go up in spite of agree- ments to the contrary. Parliament would close the port of New York as it did that of Boston. The rich would swallow up the poor. Americans would have to live like dogs and savages until the English government relented. If non- importation were confined to tea and respectful petitions sent to the home authorities, no doubt the duty would be removed, but never under the association."
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1574.
1 Ibid., 532.
3 Ibid. 1576, iii, 15, 21.
Ibid., i, 914-927, v, 874-878; Four. of Cont. Cong., 57, 68-77; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 69, 80, 176.
$ Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 36-42; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 3-36; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 25-29: Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 1211- 1213; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 27-32.
"Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 43; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 44-48.
46
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [46
The loudest cry was raised against the provincial and local committees which were appointed or chosen to execute the association. The loyalists asserted that obedience to such tyrannical bodies was slavery. These illegal committees were to enforce the association like "the Popish Inquisition." No proofs were admitted, no evidence, no defense, no jury, no appeal; judgment was rendered on appearance only ; the accused were condemned unseen and unheard, and finally outlawed or otherwise punished by the committee acting as the highest court on earth.1 "Will you choose such com- mittees?" asked Seabury. "Will you submit to them should they be chosen by the weak, foolish, turbulent part of the country people? Do as you please ; but by Him that made me, I will not. No, if I must be enslaved, let it be by a king at least and not by a parcel of upstart, lawless committee- men."? The loyalist assembly also refused to approve of the association or to suggest means for its execution.$
The committee of sixty had been chosen expressly to en- force this coercive measure.4 The committee of one hun- dred and the Provincial Congress, both whig bodies, were expected to complete the work.5 But not until April 29, 1775-subsequent to the encounter at Lexington-was an effort made to enforce the association in New York.6 County and district committees were then appointed to oversee the work.1 The names of signers and of those who refused to
1 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 35-45; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 30-39; Seabury, An Alarm, etc., 4-5; Am. Archs., 4th ser., 1211-1213; Chand- ler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 30-37.
2 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 37.
" N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 401.
4 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 328-329.
5 Ibid., ii, 400, 470.
6 Ibid., 471; Min. of Prov. Conv., i, 34-35, gives a copy of the association used in New York.
1 Rivington's N. Y. Gazetteer, no, 107, May 4, 1775; Holt's N. Y. Journal, no. 1687, May 4, 1775; Min. of Prov. Conv., i, 82.
1
47
47] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY .
sign were to be returned to the Provincial Congress.1 No " coercive steps" were to be used,2 but still the committees might pass judgment on violators of the association.3
So far as the incomplete records show, about 12,000 per- sons signed the association and nearly 6000 refused to sign.“ It must be remembered, however, that these reports came from whig committees. Besides, the returns from the loyalist strongholds were very meagre or not given at all. In Al- bany and Westchester counties only the county committees signed the association, while no returns of those who refused to sign in Queens, Kings, Richmond and Gloucester counties are known to be in existence. It is true, also, that, owing to the threats of the whigs and the force of public pressure, many, who at heart were loyalists, had not the courage to refuse to sign the association.3 Others, who became loyalists after July 4, 1776, entered, in 1775, heartily into this method of obtaining a redress of colonial grievances.6 It seems rea- sonable to conclude, therefore, notwithstanding the disparity in the figures preserved, that the association indicates the existence of almost as many loyalists as revolutionists in the province at this time.7
The " non-associators" were pointed out as objects of con- tempt and suspicion. Later the refusal to sign the associ- ation was taken as the basis for summary punishment. The names of those who refused were published and they were
2 Ibid., 98.
' Min. of Prov. Conv., i, 97.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1838. Case of the Murrays.
" These figures were obtained from lists given in local histories, Minutes of the Provincial Congress, American Archives, Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MISS., and other sources.
' Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 582.
Memorial of Henry Van Schaack, 27; Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 59; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 582.
' O'Callaghan, Doc. Hist. of N. Y., iv, shows that there were 41,616 males above 16 in New York in 1774.
48
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [48
boycotted as "enemies to their country." 1 Violators of the agreement were treated in a similar way." The county com- mittee acted finally in most cases, but doubtful and obstinate ones were sent to the Provincial and even to the Continental Congress. March 14, 1776, the latter body ordered all who refused to join the association to be disarmed.3 Later a milder form of association was submitted to them and pres- sure was brought to bear upon them to force them to sign it."
The association thus became the first decisive test of the politics of individuals to which resort was had during the revolution. It stamped the individual as a whig or a tory in the eyes of his neighbors, and treatment was meted out to him accordingly. It proved his political rectitude or de- pravity. Hesitation involved suspicion; refusal, guilt. The loyalist who was true to his convictions, creed and king was detested, reviled, and, if prominent, ruined in business, tarred and feathered, mobbed, ostracised, or imprisoned; and all this at the will of a committee, self-constituted and respon- sible to no one.5 The weak and timid were silenced and made secret enemies of the deadliest type until the arrival of British troops gave them a chance to throw off their decep- tive cloaks. That so many disapproved of the mild form of opposition in 1775, is very significant, because it meant that when independence was thrust into the conflict in 1776 and became a second and final test of men's political views, the number of loyalists would be greatly increased.
The loyalists made little open opposition to the calling of the first Provincial Congress.6 Opposition to the second
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 606-607.
* Ibid., 12, 13, 35, 298, 448, 887-889, iii, 21, 22, 439, 451, 880, 1626, 1627, iv, 690-591, vi, 1433-1434.
3 Ibid., vi, 1419. + Ibid., 1420, 1421.
5 Cf. " A Loyalist's Soliloquy." Moore, Diary of the Am. Rev., i, 169.
6 Cf. Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 31, 32, 197; cf. Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 23,
49
49]
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
Provincial Congress was far more pronounced, especially in Queens, Richmond, Kings and Gloucester counties. In the first three counties a majority voted against sending deputies.' Richmond was threatened with an interdict, and then sent two representatives .? Queens county 3 was outlawed by the Con- tinental Congress, all trade with the traitors was cut off, they were confined to the county, were ordered to be disarmed, their names were ordered to be published in all local news- papers for a month, and twenty-six leaders, together with other notorious loyalists, were ordered to be arrested and imprisoned.+ Even in New York city the twenty-one depu- ties who were chosen were so objectionable that the Pro- vincial Congress ordered the committee of one hundred to choose new ones.5
The Provincial Congress assumed all governmental powers and brought loyal government practically to an end in the colony.6 Fearing arrest,7 Governor Tryon went on board a British war-ship, where all business pertaining to his office was transacted.8 There he remained from October, 1775, until the occupation of New York by the British in Septem- ber, 1776, when civil government was finally superseded by
42-44, 64-68, 97-98; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 959; cf. Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 48-51.
Cf. Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 931, iii, 368; cf. Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MISS., i, 200-201; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1388-1391, 1754, 1756, 1762, iv, 428.
' Ibid., iii, 1762, iv, 428, 1069-1070, Jan. 19, 1776.
' Only 221 in the county voted for representatives, while 788 opposed them. Třid., iii, 1389-1391.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 1630-1632. 3 Ibid., v, 255.
6 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Ilist., viii, 579-580, 650; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 966; Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 180.
' Am, Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1052-1053; cf. Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 61-63, 559-560.
8 Ibid., i, 62; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1053-1054, 1311-1315; Docs. rel. to .V. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 638-644.
50
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [50
military rule.“ He assured the " friends of order and good government " that they would be protected, but that all others would be dealt with as rebels.2
The course taken by the Provincial Congress was satisfac- tory to neither loyalists nor ardent whigs. Complaints were heard on all sides,3 and these forced that body to name a committee to investigate the rumors so " inimical to this col- ony and its inhabitants."4 Sincere efforts for reconciliation had been made 5-a plan had been approved by the mod- erates in both parties-but to no purpose. The day for reconciliation was fast passing away.6
All of the loyalists, save a few extremists, desired peace on the broad ground of the American interpretation of Brit- ish constitutional rights. They dreaded and feared civil war as the greatest obstacle to reconciliation, for they knew that with rebellion rampant Great Britain would not and could not compromise. Therefore they denounced the military program of the whigs, and insisted that the contest be car . ried on constitutionally. Many of them labored as indefa- tigably to stay the iron hand of Great Britain as to check the seditious and revolutionary actions of the whigs. They wrote to England that sending an army and navy to Amer- ica had " disconcerted and unhinged a concilatory proposi- tion respecting a revenue."7 They recommended a suspen- sion of the restraining acts, the withdrawal of armed forces, the recognition of the right of self-taxation, and an annual
1 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 560.
2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 307, 308-309.
" Ibid., iii, 18-19, 50, 135, 262-263, 974, iv, 193, 694, 830.
Ibid., v, 328.
5 Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 112-113, 14C-141, 307-313, 325, 34C-341, 424, 347-348, ii, 10-11.
6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 470-473, v, 854, 931, 942, 945, 947, IC55, 1078, 1169.
1 /bid., 4th ser., ii, 1526-1528.
51
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
51]
colonial congress, on all whose acts a veto right of the crown should be reserved.1 The prospect of independence seemed intolerable to them. "The tories dread a declaration of in- dependence, and a course of conduct on that plan, more than death," wrote a prominent whig.2 That would be an anarch- istic blow at church and state. The loyalist presses were busy waging this new battle.3 They asserted their right to discuss the momentous question "without being charged with sentiments inimical to America." They insisted, with truth, that this was a new issue, wholly inconsistent with the declar- ations and professions of individuals, committees, conven- tions and congresses in 1774 and 1775, and hence ought not to be forced upon them against their protest.4
The loyalists were encouraged by Governor Tryon's letter "To the Inhabitants of the Colony of New York," March 16, 1776.5 He extended his thanks to the loyalists "for their zealous attachment to our happy constitution and their obedience to the sovereignty of the British empire." By the king's orders he promised "every assistance and protec- tion the state of Great Britain will enable his majesty to afford them" for withstanding the revolutionary acts. He urged all good loyal citizens to be firm for a few months, when rebellion would be suppressed. But that was a vain promise.
All parties on both sides of the Atlantic professed a de- sire for peace, but neither the revolutionists nor British au- thorities seemed willing to sacrifice or compromise the prin-
" Ibid., v, 1168.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1527, V, IOII,
' Ibid., v, 514, 542, 802, 839, 1036, 1049, vi, 1348, 1363.
' Ibid., v, 1011-1016. They denied " that those who hesitate to embrace an immediate independency, would sacrifice their country for the sake of a re-union with Great Britain."
$ Ibid., 248-249; Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 161-163; Constitutional Gazette, March 20, 1776.
52
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [52
ciple on which the contest rested. Meanwhile the colonies declared themselves independent, and all prospects of peace were at an end. A fierce war of extermination had begun, and loyalists were forced to act on the defensive.
In the colonial history of New York nothing is more pat- ent than the fact that at no time, prior to the close of 1775, was total independence desired. The charge that independ- ence was desired was resented publicly and privately, indi- vidually and collectively, on all occasions, by all classes and all parties. Complete separation did not become the issue of the contest until early in 1776, and was certainly not the the original object of the war. The whigs and loyalists stood together in demanding their constitutional rights, but differed more and more widely as to the means of securing them. When, at last, the whigs proclaimed the new issue of independence, the loyalists branded it as revolution, an archy and political suicide. They declared that it was not only a violation of all earlier professions, but that it was the course least likely to secure the end desired. There- fore they fought it bitterly with the pen, the sword and the Bible.I
The loyalist literature, both before and after July 4, 1776, reflects the attitude of that party toward the Declaration of Independence. These loyalist writers asserted over and over again that independence would be the direst calamity ;2 that the attempt to secure it was heretical, sinful and impractic- able ;3 and that, if obtained, it would lead to internecine war and ruin, and would force the colonies to seek the protection
1 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 52-59; Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 24, 44; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 1067.
2 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 52-59.
3 Inglis, T'he True Interest of America, etc .; Plain Truth, etc., and Additions to Plain Truth, etc., both very likely by Inglis; cf. Tyler, Lit. Hist. of Am. Rev., i, 479.
53
53] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
of some foreign sea-power, for which they would have to pay in one year more than for all British duties.1 One loyalist pam- phleteer no doubt expressed the biased thought of his party when he declared that, of the seventy men who constituted the Continental Congress, which issued the Declaration of Independence, all but eight or nine were deeply in debt or very poor, and hoped for great benefit from the change .? " Republicans, smugglers, debtors and men of desperate for- tunes were the principal promoters of this unnatural rebel- lion." 3 Adding the politicians, he said, you have the " sum total of those who were active and zealous for independence." + Others were inveigled into joining the movement. But the loyalists on every hand were convinced that independence was unattainable, and that the idea "must vanish like the baseless fabric of a vision." 5
"The Declaration of Independence," said Thomas Jones, the loyalist historian, "was the first act that put an end to the courts of law, to the laws of the land, and to the admin- istration of justice under the British crown. . . . The revolt was now complete. . . . A usurped kind of gov- ernment took place; a medley of military law, convention ordinances, congress recommendations and committee reso- lutions." 6 Every American now had to choose between re- maining a subject of Great Britain-which had always been his pride-and thus becoming a traitor to the United States of America, and declaring himself a citizen of the latter newly- born nation, and, consequently, a traitor to the crown. There was no compromise and no middle ground. Those
1 Cooper, American Querist, etc., queries 80-89; Seabury, The Congress Can- vassed, etc., 52-59.
' Letters of Papinian, etc., preface, iv.
$ Ibid., 107. + Ibid., 108. 6 Ibid., 125-130.
6 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., ii, 115.
54
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [54
who tried the neutral course were treated by the revolution- ists as enemies and harried out of the land.1
The act of July 4, 1776, led to a final readjustment of party lines. It gave finality to loyalism. The great "party of opposition," composed of whigs and liberal loyalists, broke up. Loyalists now gave up all hopes of carrying out their moderate program, and relied upon British military power to suppress revolution and to destroy treason. Many took up arms against the insurgents, others fled to Canada or England, while the rest either tried to brave the storm in their own localities or else sought protection within the British lines. The loyalist party now reached its high-water mark as a political organization with a positive part to play. It was composed of three classes. The first and most influen- tial group was the conservative loyalists, who had denounced all show of armed resistance, and had either upheld Great Britain in her course, or, at furthest, had favored petitions and remonstrances through legally constituted bodies. The second class consisted of those moderate loyalists who meant to be true to the king and parliament, but who looked at these from the standpoint of an American. They cham- pioned the claims of the colonists as just, approved of the extra-legal bodies and in many instances were members of them, and even sanctioned a show of resistance in order to compel a recognition of their rights. One of the most con- spicuous examples of this class was John Alsop, one of New York's delegates to Congress. He wrote to the New York Provincial Convention July 16, 1776, that he was surprised at their resolution in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Such action was against his "judgment and inclination." As long as a door was open for reconciliation with Great
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.