USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > Part 5
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 The case of Peter Van Schaack, a loyalist lawyer, was a typical example. Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 6c.
55
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
55]
Britain, he was ready to serve his country with all his power, but now that his hope of that event was destroyed, he re- signed his office.1 The Convention promptly resolved that it cheerfully accepted Mr. Alsop's resignation of his seat in the Continental Congress.2 The third faction of loyalists in 1776 was composed of conservative whigs who had been willing to fight to defeat a bad ministerial policy and to se- cure their rights as British subjects, but who now halted when treason and national disruption were decreed, and re- fused to be coerced into an approval of total separation from the crown. Isaac Low and James Duane represent this class.3
Men must now take sides either for or against independ- ence. The issues were clear and well understood. There could be no recognized middle ground.4 All had to choose whom they would serve. Those who desired to remain neu- tral, and they were very numerous, were treated as more dangerous traitors than those who openly espoused the Brit- ish side, and were forced in self-defense to seek royal pro-
1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 368, 1428-1429.
1 Ibid. 1429, 1431. Peter Van Schaack, a moderate loyalist, who desired to re- main neutral in the conflict, summed up the attitude of a majority of the party, when he said that they were " disposed to go along with Congress to a certain limited extent, hoping in that way to fix what they conceived to be the rights of their country upon the firmest foundation; but as soon as they found that the views and designs of the American leaders rested in nothing short of a dissolution of the union between Great Britain and her colonies, they refused any longer to participate in public measures." Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 60.
$ Cf. Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 712-713, note lxvii; cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 468.
*" I could hardly own the king and fight against him at the same time; but now these matters are cleared up. Heart and hand shall move together. I don't think there will be five tories in our part of the country in ten days after mat- ters are known. We have had great numbers, who would do nothing until we were declared a free state, who are now ready to spend their lives and for- tunes in defence of our country." Joseph Barton, of N. J., to Henry Wisner, of N. Y., July 9, 1776. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 139.
56
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [56
tection. Though not a few loyalists now openly advocated the extreme claims of the mother country, still the majority, while far from approving the spirit of the British colonies or sanctioning the demands of parliament, were determined to maintain union with Great Britain.2 The party was a unit on this question if not on others. Its members soon saw that the day of argument, of political agitation and of effective action through legal bodies was past.3 Through force alone could they win victory for their principles.+
Therefore, in the early months of 1776, the loyalist party reached its summit as a political organization and began to decline. Of course it continued as a factor in the struggle till 1783, when its members were scattered over the various divisions of the British empire and as a party it ceased to exist. But from and after 1776 the loyalists were compelled to appear as unqualified supporters of the impolitic treat- ment by Great Britain of its colonies, and therefore were forced to play a part which was to an extent inconsistent with their assertions and convictions. It is a gross error, however, to believe that the loyalists as a whole were willing to submit without a protest to the invasion of American rights and liberties. They were Americans and proud of it. They felt the grievances as keenly as did the whigs, but they desired to secure relief in ways provided in the British con- stitution. But the folly of the English king, and, as they re- garded it, the dogmatic fanaticism of many of the colonists, destroyed all hope of an amicable settlement, caused civil war and led to a result unexpected by either party at the
1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 1292.
" Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1431, 1720.
" This was very noticeable in the amount and character of their literature after July 4, 1776. Cf. Tyler, Lit. Hist. of the Am. Rev.
"" It then evidently appeared that nothing but the sword could decide the con- test." Cooper, A Sermon, etc., 17.
57
57]
ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
outset. When independence became the great issue, the loy- alists took the same view the North did in the late rebellion : they held that "loyalty " was one of the highest virtues ; that the supporters of the majesty of law and the established government were acting an honorable part; that the national state, the constitution and the flag must be preserved, and that rebellion must be suppressed at all hazards and even, if necessary, by the sword.
CHAPTER III
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
PRIOR to August 3, 1775, the attitude of the revolutionary government toward obnoxious loyalists was not clearly de- fined. Cases were determined according to circumstances and exigencies ; there were no fixed rules of action either continental or provincial. The Provincial Congress felt it necessary, therefore, to take decisive action against these in- ternal foes. By dealing with special cases precedents were es- tablished which gradually developed into principles of action.
The first case brought before the Provincial Congress was that of Guy Johnson, who was warned not to interfere with their plans.1 No doubt he expressed the sentiment of his faction when he replied that, since reconciliation could come through the assembly alone, he had refused to par- ticipate in seditious public meetings called by "leather dressers." He denounced the efforts to injure him in his office, and closed his letter with the words: "I should be much obliged for your promises" of safety, " did they not appear to be made on condition of compliance with conti- nental or provincial congresses, or even committees . . . many of whose resolves may neither consist with my con- science, duty or loyalty." 2
The next case was that of Angus McDonald, arrested for enlisting loyalist troops. He confessed his guilt and was sent as a prisoner to Connecticut.3 A letter found on his
1 Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 153-154. ? Ibid., ii, 110-112.
3 Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 234-240, 243-244: Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 89, 913. 58 [58
59
59]
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
person showed that Alexander McDonald was similarly en- gaged in Richmond county. His arrest was ordered, but he fled to Boston.1 These three cases mark the beginning of armed resistance to the revolutionary government of New York by congresses, conventions and committees. They also mark the beginning of the policy of arresting, imprison- ing, exiling and otherwise punishing loyalists who dared op- pose the revolutionary authority and favor the established power which the whigs themselves still professed to respect.
In June, 1775, Congress, suspicious of the loyalty of Queens county, requested the delinquent deputies from that section to attend and explain their negligence. The Queens county members who were present were asked to report the sentiments of their constituents. "It appearing that a great number of inhabitants of the said county are not disposed to a representation at this Board and have dissented there- from," the Congress resolved, as a guardian of the people, that Queens county "must necessarily be bound by the de- termination of this Congress." 2 Richmond county was also forced to send representatives. By this action the Provin- cial Congress asserted the right of the majority of the coun- ties to coerce the minority. It is not strange that the loyal- ists declared this to be a violation of the very rights for which Americans were contending with England.
The committee of safety, acting for the Provincial Congress, in July, 1775, had before it a case of still another type. Peter Herring, of New York, aided a loyalist prisoner to escape to a British man of-war. He was arrested and ordered to be im- prisoned in Connecticut until released by the Continental Congress.3 Cases tried before county committees were sent
' Am. Archs., 4th .ser., iii, 240-242; cf. Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 203.
' Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 293, 344; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1328.
3 Min. of Prov. Cong., ii, 1-2, 3, 19; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1645.
60
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [60
to the Provincial Congress for final action.1 Whenever re- ports of serious disaffection reached the Provincial Congress a committee was sent to investigate.2
Here was a variety of cases, from the individual who was "inimical to the grand cause " to the "inimical " county. So numerous and so dangerous were the loyalists that regulations must be adopted to control them, or the whole cause might be lost. Law and not the tyranny of a mob must be the basis of action. Consequently a series of resolves was passed August 3, 1775. They stated that, since efforts were made to aid the British army and navy in enforcing the "cruel and oppressive acts of parliament against the liber- ties of America," "and as the immutable laws of self-defense and preservation justify every reasonable measure entered into to counteract or frustrate such attempts," therefore it was resolved that any person found guilty before any city or county committee of supplying "the ministerial army or navy," or of revealing secrets or giving advice to the same, should be punished by the committee or Provincial Con- gress. Those guilty of furnishing supplies were to be dis- armed and forfeit to the province double the value of the articles they supplied. They were to be imprisoned for three months after the forfeiture was paid. A second offense would be followed by banishment from the colony for seven years. Those who denied or opposed the authority of the Continental or Provincial Congress, or the committe of safety, or the committee of any county, city, town, manor or precinct, or dissuaded others from obeying the same, were to be tried by the county committee. If found guilty, they were to be disarmed, and, for a second offense, they were to be confined at their own expense. In case a committee could not exe- cute these resolves it was authorized to call upon the com-
1 Min. of Prov. Cong., ii, 54-57, 103-104.
2 Ibid., 167; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 16, 527, 573-574.
61
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
61]
mittee of the next county, or the militia, or congress for aid. If no committee existed in any county, cases were to be tried before committees of neighboring counties. Every person " discovered to be in arms against the liberties of America" was to be seized by the local committee or militia, and held in custody for punishment by the Provincial Congress. His property was to be put into the hands of "some discreet per- son," appointed by the committee, who was to pay all profits to the provincial treasury. All persons arrested were to have immediate trial before committeemen sworn to render judgment "without partiality, favor or affection, or hope of reward, according to evidence." 1
Here was an edict passed by the representatives of the people, and, therefore, having, in the opinion of the whigs, the force of law. They argued that in the future the treatment of loyalists obnoxious to the community could not be called arbitrary, because it was founded on law. But loyalists could not understand how a revolutionary congress, called in the sacred name of liberty, could refuse to their fellow-subjects. the privilege of securing those same rights in a different way. Trial and punishment for refusing to be revolutionists sav- ored more of despotism than the injuries they suffered from the hands of an overbearing parliament. These resolves mark the beginning of that harsh policy of the revolutionists toward the loyalists, founded on resolution and precedent, which, in turn, were based on natural rights and the neces- sity for self-preservation. Nothing is more striking in the revolutionary history of New York than the constant at- tempt to make the treatment of loyalists, whether by the pettiest committee or by the Provincial Congress, appear to be legal. In taking this action the Provincial Congress an- ticipated the Continental Congress by two months, for it was
1 Min. of Prov. Cong., ii, 314-319.
62
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [62
not until October 6, 1775, that the body at Philadelphia recommended the arrest of dangerous characters.1
To take from the loyalists their means of defense and to secure a supply of arms for the troops, the committee of safety decided, September 16, 1775, to seize all arms found in the possession of " non-associators." A list of such confiscations was to be kept, with the appraised values, so that the weapons might be returned or paid for after the war. County committees were to receive the arms subject to the will of Congress. Suffolk county troops, aided by Colonel Lasher, were sent to Queens county to execute the resolution. The chairman of the county committee and Captain Dutcher, aided by the militia and by General Wooster's troops, were to do the same in Westchester county. In other counties the head of the local committee, assisted by the militia, was to enforce the measure. If loyalists resisted, they were to be seized and taken before the Provincial Congress.2 This was the beginning of that system of confiscation which ended in the sale of all real and personal property of the loyalists. On October 24, the Provincial Congress disapproved of the reso- lutions of the committee of safety,3 but they had been in op- eration long enough to result in the disarmament of many of the loyalists on Long Island, Staten Island, in New York city, Westchester county and elsewhere, and to arouse the most bitter hatred against the revolutionary government and the whigs. In Queens county especially the loyalists re- sisted, denounced Congress, concealed their valuable arms, and threatened to kill any who tried to seize them.4
The disarming of loyalists, which was recommended by
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1891; Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 188, 190-191.
' Ibid., 73-76.
" Ibid., 267-268; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1303.
4 Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 113-117, 124.
63
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
63]
the committee of safety in September and the next month repudiated by the Provincial Congress, was recommended by the Continental Congress on March 14, 1776. Now all persons "notoriously disaffected to the cause of America," as well as non-associators, were ordered to be disarmed. The object was to make the foes at home harmless and to arm the continental troops and militia.1 Hence again the committee of safety instructed all local committees to disarm every one who was " disaffected to the cause of America," or who refused to take an oath of loyalty to the revolutionary powers.2 Local bodies were cautioned to act moderately, but to use the militia if necessary. The arms were to be appraised by "indifferent persons," marked, recorded, and then turned over to the chairman of the county committee, who, in turn, was to send them with the records to the Provincial Congress.3 Whole neighborhoods, whose loyalty was too pronounced, were thus disarmed.4 The loyalists who were deprived of their weapons had to swear that all arms had been surren- dered; but many refused so to do,5 and, as a punishment, were fined or taxed five shillings a day while the district militia was in service.6 If the fine was not paid, it was col- lected from the property of the loyalists. This money was used to help arm the "associators."7 To guard against the influx of loyalists from other colonies every stranger was forced to show from his home committee a certificate " of his
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 989, v, 244, 1409, 1638, 1646.
' Ibid., 1409-1410; Min. of Prov. Cong., V, 25, 410.
$ Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 274, 1409-1410.
Ibid., 1469, 1487; Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 410, 485, 612.
& Ibid., 494, 512.
Ibid., 529; cf. Act in Pa. Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 703; Ibid., 1504. In Al- bany County the loyalists had to pay an equal share of the military service. Proceedings of the Alb. Co. Com., i, 451.
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser .. v, 1504. Amendment to the Militia Act, May 11, 1776.
64
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [64
friendliness to the liberties of America," or be subject to trial " as a person inimical thereto."1 The silence and, in many cases, the known co-operation of the loyalists with the British led the blustering whigs to conclude that the few tories who dared to open their mouths, together with the placemen in church and state, composed the loyalist party.2
The acts of the Provincial Congress were confirmed and supplemented by a series of resolves of the Continental Con- gress, passed January 2, 1776. They defined, though rather indefinitely, the status of the loyalists, and outlined the gen- eral policy to be enforced regarding them. They assumed that the loyalists were " honest, well-meaning, but unin- formed people," led astray by the " art and address of min- isterial agents." The various committees were instructed, therefore, to explain to them the real situation by conversa- tion and printed matter. Should "unworthy Americans " still side with the oppressors of America, the various gov- ernmental bodies of the colonies were recommended, "by the most speedy and effectual measures, to frustrate the mis- chievous machinations, and restrain the wicked practices of these men " by disarming them and by exacting a heavy bond for good behavior from the worst among them, or else by imprisoning them. This, it was thought, would meet the need. To this end the colonies were authorized to call upon continental troops if necessary.3
The resolutions of the sovereign body of the United Col- onies, and of the provincial government, formed the ground- work for a complete system of regulations concerning the loyalists. To loyalists, however, these regulations and edicts, originating in revolution, seemed despotic and tyran- nical. They denied and resisted the right of the revolution- ists to dictate what they should believe and how they should
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 438.
' Ibid., iii, 940, 1563.
$ Ibid., vi, 1628-1629.
65
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
65]
act, as contrary to all natural, divine and constitutional rights. In the opinion of the whigs, the loyalists were trai- tors to a just cause, hence these laws were looked upon as moderate, right and needful. Every effort, too, was made to establish their legality.1 Indeed, so lenient was the Provin- cial Congress that General Washington complained to the Continental Congress, and that body ordered New York to provide better "for detecting, restraining and punishing dis- affected and dangerous persons in that colony," and for preventing loyalists from corresponding with the British. Washington was instructed to help enforce the order.2
By the early months of 1776 the status of the loyalists was well defined. The inquisition for dealing with them was thoroughly organized and in active operation. From the sovereign Continental Congress to the pettiest district com- mittee there was a comparatively uniform procedure, based on continental and provincial regulations and supplemented by precedents. Authorization came from the supreme rep- resentative bodies, but the enforcement of the scheme was left to minor boards. The Continental Congress laid down the program on general lines, but let each colony devise its own ways and means.3 A few special cases were sent to the supreme body for action. In New York itself the Provincial Congress took cognizance of very dangerous or difficult cases.4 Loyalists themselves again and again appealed to it.5 County and district committees received their instruc-
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1716. Act of Prov. Cong., June 18, 1776.
? Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1706, June 14, 1776.
3 Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1084; Gaines' N. Y. Gazette, no. 1291.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 725, 1327.
Ibid., iii, 451, 630, 907, 908, 910, 916, 1016, 1267, 1300, 1303; iv, 923, 1017, IIII, 1120; V, 192, 193, 341, 342, 348, 390, 991; vi, 446, 1055, 1315, 1348, 1354, 1355, 1360, 1362, 1365, 1391 : Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 153, 161; iv, 165, 168, 170.
66
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [66
tions from it. The acts of military officers were counter- manded by it.' It advised local committees when in doubt, interpreted law, acted as a final court of appeal, raised and disbursed money-in short, was the powerful head of the provincial inquisition.2
In May, 1776, a committee, appointed by the Provincial Congress, on ways and means for dealing with "intestine enemies " recommended that Queens county loyalists should be disarmed by force and compelled to take an oath to sup- port the American cause; that all British officers, both mili- tary and civil, should be arrested; that all who promised to favor the American cause should be released; that danger- ous loyalists should be sent to Connecticut, New Jersey or Pennsylvania on parole; and that all who refused paroles should be imprisoned until the Provincial Congress passed on them. The report was adopted.3 But finding that the trial of loyalists took too much time, a "standing commit- tee " of five was appointed, May 27, 1776, to try all tories arrested by Congress or by the committee of safety. It was empowered to call and examine witnesses, to send for papers, and to discharge all the innocent. A record was to be kept, and all proceedings were to be reported to the superior body. Three were a quorum.+
This committee was deluged with business. June 5th, 1776, forty-four loyalists, fifty-five royal officers and many suspects were brought up for trial.5 So arduous were the duties that a new committee of nine was soon appointed
1 Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 707; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 676, 1358; Dawson, Westchester Co., 172.
1 Ibid., 174; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 439, 446, 451, 880; iv, 187-188.
3 Ibid., vi, 1324, 1327, !328, 1331, 1342, 1365-1370; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MISS.,
i, 338; cf. Dawson, Westchester Co., p. 165.
' Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 632-636, 649; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1337.
5 Min. of Prov Cong., v, 737-747.
67]
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS 67
with increased powers. It could issue warrants for arrest, try loyalists and declare them guilty or innocent.1 A sub- committee was named to try loyalists at a distance.2 The proceedings of these committees reveal the hopes, fears, numbers, character and treatment of the loyalists in New York before July 4, 1776.3 The purpose of the Congress in creating the general committee of nine and its duties may be seen in the resolves of June 5, 1776. That body was con- vinced that the loyalists of New York and the neighboring colonies were in communication with one another, and were thus strengthening the cause of the English ministry. Cer- tain persons in the counties of Queens, Kings, Westchester, Richmond and New York and elsewhere were represented " as disaffected to the American cause." Since the colony could not tolerate annoyance by " domestic enemies," when a hostile army was daily expected, it was resolved to appoint a special committee, distinct from the committee of safety, to summon or arrest and bring before it obnoxious loyalists for trial. All persons found guilty of aiding the enemy, per- suading persons from uniting against parliament, preventing the circulation of paper money, or hindering united action against the British ministry were to be imprisoned, put under bond for good behavior, or removed from their localities on parole. The innocent were to be given certificates and dis- charged. The continental troops stationed in the province, and not the local militia, were to be used by the committee. County committees were urged to discover and to seize loyal- ists and to report to Congress. Town and district committees were authorized also to arrest the "dangerous and disaf- fected," to give them a preliminary hearing and to send them to the county committees. If the accused should decline to give security for such appearance, they should be kept in
1 Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 737-747, 835; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1400. ' Ibid., vi, 1152-1183.
3 Ibid.
.
68
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [68
safe custody till the next meeting of the general committee. Fifty-five crown officers, specified by name, and all others of like character were to be called before the committee. If they ignored the summons, they were to be arrested by a warrant executed by any militia officer in the colony. The "friends to the American cause " were to be discharged and certificated. The loyalists of influence were to be removed to a neighboring colony and put on a parole of honor. Those refusing to give a parole were to be imprisoned. The less dangerous were to be bound over to keep the peace, or confined, as seemed necessary. This provincial committee and the county committees were instructed to keep a com- plete record of all their proceedings and report the same to the Provincial Congress. The committee had power to send for witnesses and papers, while its members and those of the county committees were put under oath to perform their duties impartially.'
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.