USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > Part 6
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
On June 15 the committee of nine met in New York city, and elected a president, secretary and assistant secre- tary, messenger and doorkeeper .? A form of "summons" to be issued to loyalists was adopted.3 This was served on twenty royal officers of " equivocal character." + A special warrant was adopted for arresting those of " equivocal char- acter" who had disobeyed the summons, and also those "supposed to be inimical and dangerous." 5 With these weapons the committee began its work. Washington was ordered to turn loyalists over to it.6 Suspects were occa-
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1365-1370.
' Proceedings, etc., June 15, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1152, 1400, 1403; Cal. of N. Y. Ilist. MSS., i, 340.
' Proceedings, etc., June 15, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1153.
Proceedings, etc., June 19, 1776.
Ibid., etc., June 19, 1776, and June 21, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1153.
" Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1158.
69
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
69]
sionally examined by a sub-committee,' but notorious loyal- ists were tried by the committee in full session.
The first prominent person examined was Whitehead Hicks. He said he held crown offices and had sworn alle- giance to the king, and hence would not take up arms against him. He was not willing to be taxed by parliament, yet he had refused to sign the association. He believed arms should be used only as a last resort, and he was not prepared to say that all other measures had been exhausted. The committee decided that he was not a friend to the American cause and put him on parole.2 Samuel Martin denied the right of internal taxation by Great Britain and was released on parole. Samuel Whitten signed the association and was set free.3 William Axtell did not believe parliament had a right "to bind the colonies in all cases," nor did he approve of the program of opposition. He wished to remain neu- tral for the sake of his property, objected to the parole and was then turned over to the Provincial Congress.+ Captain Archibald Hamilton boasted " that he loved America, that he had fought, bled and been in irons for her, that he wished her free and happy," and that he would not " draw his sword against her." Neither would he unsheath it against his brothers on the king's side. He was dismissed on his parole of honor. John Willett denied the right of parliament to levy internal taxes in America, but would not take up arms against the king. His other answers were so equivocal that he was released under a bond of £2,000.5
These are fair examples of the ideas and convictions of the rather extreme type of loyalists, and of the examinations held by this first provincial inquisitorial committee. Other "equivocal characters" and " inimical persons " were exam-
1 Am. Archs., 4th series, vi, 1154-1157, 1161 et seq.
" Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1159. $ Ibid., 1160. 'Ibid., 1180-1181.
$ Proceedings, etc., June 24, 1776.
·
70
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [70
ined prior to July 7, 1776. The number of these and the results of their examination cannot be definitely ascertained from the meagre records.' The Ulster county jail was made a provincial prison where loyalists were confined at their own expense.2 Goshen township, Orange county, was chosen 2, the place of detention for loyalists on parole.3 On June '.8, a committee of three was named to take charge of prisoners, continental and provincial, and instructed to treat them " with justice and humanity." 4
The Constitutional Convention of the state of New York held at White Plains reorganized the " standing committee" July 9, and reduced its membership to six. With it was com- bined a committee of three, which had been appointed, June 17, to confer with Washington about dangerous conspira- tors, and with power to arrest loyalists and to call on the militia or continental troops for aid, if needed.5 The powers of the joint committee were enlarged,6 and it was now to dis- pose of all loyalist prisoners, to remove them to places of safety and to appoint a commissary to care for them. It re- lieved Washington of the jurisdiction over them, given to him on June 30 by Congress. In general it was instructed to do what was most "advancive" for the public good. But the committee was revived only to disappear, for soon all trace of it is lost in the turmoil following July 4, 1776.7
1 Proceedings, etc., June 27, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1181.
2 Ibid .. iv, 437. At one time there were 57 loyalists in jail there from New York, 4 from Kings, 38 from Queens, 13 from Westchester, and 6 from Richmond county. Cal. of N. Y. IIist. MSS., i, 340-341.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 1496-1497. + Ibid., vi, 1437, 1442. 6 Ibid., 1391-1392.
Ibid., 1412, 1419, 1435; 5th ser. I, 1391.
1 Proceedings, etc., July 12, 1776. This seems to be the last session of the com- mittee. The records end here. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1415, 1417, show that 17 loyalists were reported to the Convention July IS, 1776, for treason, counterfeit- ng, supplying the British, being " notoriously disaffected," and being " too good a pilot to be trusted at large." Of them 13 were sent to Connecticut, 2 to Albany, and 2 were released. Ibid., 1419, 1441, 1445.
71
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
71]
The firm but comparatively moderate treatment of loyal- ists by the revolutionary government of New York was very exasperating to patriots, civil and military, within and with- out the province. John Hancock urged New York to attaint all traitors, as well as counterfeiters.1 Washington com- plained to the Continental Congress of her inactivity, and readily accepted General Charles Lee's scheme of dealing with the " dangerous banditti of tories."2 John Adams tola Washington that loyalists were identical with British troops, and hence that he had jurisdiction over them in New York.3 But the Provincial Congress peremptorily forbade the execu- tion of the military program, and was supported by the Continental Congress.+ It regarded the army and all gen- eral and local committees as instruments to carry out its wil .
The revolutionary authorities sought to bring their deal- ings with the loyalists into harmony with the law and regu- lations which were laid down by the Provincial and Conti- nental Congress. When the Albany county committee sent six loyalists out of the colony, the Provincial Congress de- manded an explanation.5 When General Charles Lee im- prisoned Samuel Gale in Connecticut, the same body de- nounced the act as arbitrary.6 When a mob arrested Charles Oliver Bruff on suspicion of being a loyalist, the New York city jailer refused to receive him, and applied to General Washington for instructions.7 Although the Provincial Congress discountenanced mobs and declared that riots were a violation of the laws of the land, and urged that all disputes be sent to it for adjudication,8 still the mob broke out again and again against particularly obnoxious loyalists.
1 Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 899, June 25, 1776.
2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 582-583, 595, 604, 605, 623, 624; v, 57, 74-75, vi, 790. * Ibid., v, 1391-1393.
4 Ibid., iv, 604; v, 342-343, 347-348.
b Ibid., vi, 1432; cf. ibid., 1716. 6 Ibid., v, 341. 7 Ibid., vi, 430.
* Holt's N. Y. Journal, no. 1692, June 8, 1775.
72
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [72
In New York city, however, there was a social element, ignorant, excitable and combustible, which furnished excel- lent material for mobs. The leaders of both parties had used this weapon, but by 1775 it was wholly devoted to revo- lution. The revolutionists, now holding the upper hand, had no difficulty in using it, for it could be easily aroused by talks about natural rights, taxation, slavery and the cruel acts of parliament. Before the appearance of the British ar'ny, in the summer of 1776, the mob was likely to take ven- geance on every objectionable tory of prominence, and many a one felt its heavy hand. The sentiment for liberty was strong, but it was crude and not self-consistent. In practice it was exclusive, because it denied to others what it claimed for itself. Those who cried loudest for it denied it to their neighbors. A loyalist, viewing the violence of a revolution- ary mob in the metropolis, exclaimed: "These are the peo- ple who are contending for liberty; they engross the whole of it to themselves and allow not a tittle to their oppo- nents." Unlimited freedom was made an equivalent of po- litical liberty. A whig asked his loyalist neighbor whether he might cut down a valuable tree on his land, and received this reply: "Why do you ask? You are for liberty; why do you not go and take it?" The wife of a soldier was ordered by her landlord to leave her house for not paying her rent, hence she wrote to her husband to go to his com- manding officers to "see wether D. has any right to turn me out of door, since you have listed to go and fight for liberty. Why should not I have liberty whilst you strive for lib- erty ? " 1 The ladies of Ulster and Dutchess counties sur- rounded the committee chamber and declared that they would have the liberty to drink tea, or else their husbands and sons should fight no more for liberty .?
The "excess of the spirit of liberty " was made a painful 1 Jour. of Prov. Cong., ii, 342. ? Ibid., i, 590.
73
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
73]
object lesson to the loyalists in the destruction of tory print- ing presses, types, manuscripts and books;' the burning of individuals in effigy,? tarring and feathering,3 rail-riding through the streets and other personal outrages ; + breaking windows, stealing live stock and personal effects 5 and de- stroying property.6 " Disaffection " simply meant a refusal to accept as true the opinions of the party in powe . and to support its policy, and the slightest suspicion of this was quite sufficient to cause arrest, and imprisonment or banien- ment at the victim's expense. In case it was necessary. his property was confiscated and sold to pay expenses.7
The action of the "republican mob," led by Colonel Lasher, John Smith, Joshua Hett Smith, Peter Van Zandt and Abraham Lott, toward loyalists in New York city will illus- trate the customary procedure of that unruly force. The whole city was searched for "tories," and several were dragged " from their lurking holes, where they had taken refuge to avoid the undeserved vengeance of an ungovern- able rabble." These "unhappy victims " were put "upon sharp rails with one leg on each side; each rail was carried upon the shoulders of two tall men, with a man on each side
' James Rivington and Samuel Loudon.
" This was a very common practice. Constitutional Gazette, March 23, 1776.
' Cases of Judge James Smith and Coen Smith, given in Upcott, iv, 327. Quoted in Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 138. Am. Arch., 4th ser., iii, 823; iv, 203.
"Numerous instances are recorded. Memoirs of L. I. Hist. Soc., iii, 92.
· All over the colony, especially on Long Island, Staten Island, Westchester and Tryon counties, such cases were reported.
. Rivington's Gazette, Jan. 12, 1775; Ibid., March 6, 1775; Ibid., March 9, 1775; Holt's N. Y., Journal, March 23, 1775; Pennsylvania Evening Post, Jan. 25 and Feb. 3, 1776.
" This was almost the " soupconne d' etre suspect" of the French Revolution. Cf. Holt's N. Y. Journal, Feb. 16, 1775, for an account of the enforcement of the association in New York. Yet the king was prayed for publicly down to July 4, 1776.
74
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [74
to keep the poor wretch straight and fixed in his seat." "Numbers" were thus paraded through the streets, and at every corner loudly denounced as notorious "tories." The procession passed the buildings occupied by the Provincial Convention and the committee of public safety, then in session, and before the very door of General Washington, who so far approved of "this inhuman, barbarous proceeding that he gave a very severe reprimand to General Putnam, who acci- dentally meeting one of these processions on the street, and shocked by its barbarity, attempted to put a stop to it, Washington declaring that to discourage such proceedings was to injure the cause of liberty in which they were en- gaged, and that nobody would attempt it but an enemy to his country.": Generals Mifflin and Putnam appealed to the Provincial Congress to stop the cruelty.2 But that body did not.dare to condemn outright the course of the "warm friends of liberty," and hence disapproved of the transaction in a mild resolution, to the effect "that this Congress by no means approve of the riots that have happened this day ; they flatter themselves, however, that they have proceeded from a real regard to liberty and a detestation of those per- sons, who, by their language and conduct, have discovered themselves to be inimical to the cause of America. To urge the warm friends of liberty to decency and good order, this Congress assures the public, that effectual measures shall be taken to secure the enemies of American liberty in this col- ony; and do require the good people of this city and colony to desist from all riots and leave the offenders against so
' Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 101-103. His description is supported by Pastor Schaukirk's Diary, quoted in Mem. Hist. of N. Y. City, ii, 495; by a MS. letter in the N. Y. Mercantile Lib., quoted in Lamb, Ilist. of N. Y. City, ii, 77-78; by a letter from Surgeon Solomon Drowne, published in the Revolutionary Documents of the N. Y. Mercantile Lib. Ass'n; and by a letter from Staten Island in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., iv, 288.
2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1397-1398.
75]
75
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
good a cause to be dealt with by the constitutional represen- tatives of the colony." 1 But loyalists were able to see little difference, in essence, between the disorderly mob and the orderly Congress or committee. Both were revolution- ary bodies which deprived them of their rights and liber- ties.
The mob afforded concrete proof of what loyalists justly feared in the revolutionary program. The 76th query of " The American Querist" was: "Whether the Colonies, in a great measure, have not, for the past ten years, been under an iniquitous and tyrannical government, namely, the gov .. ernment of unprincipled mobs."2 In December, 1776, the Provincial Congress ordered the committee of public safety to secure all the pitch and tar "necessary for the public use and public safety."3 To this act the loyalists pointed as evidence of the alliance between pretended legal bodies and the lawless mobs.
The heated times produced the most violent abuse and vi- tuperation. Neither party could see honesty or honor in the other. The whigs charged the loyalists with looking upon the "rights of mankind " as altogether visionary, patriotism as hypocrisy and liberty as a shadow, because too corrupt, mentally, to reach the sublime in morals and devoid of soul- expansion.+ Their behavior was the " severest satire upon the species"-a compound of inconsistency, falsehood, cow- ardice and selfishness. In 1765 they were patriots, clamor- ers for liberty and property, the life and soul of mobs. In
1 Jour. of Prov. Cong., i, 491.
" Cooper, American Querist, etc., 24-25. Cf. "Speech of I-c W-s, Esq.," in N. Y. Assembly. Rivington's Gazette, no. 103, April 6, 1776. Cf. Short Ad- vice to the Counties of New York, II. Cf. James Stewart, Total Refutation of Dr. Price, 3-4. Cf. Hamilton, Works, i, 149.
" Four. of Prov. Cong., i, 232.
4 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1414-1417; cf. ibid., ii, 508-509.
76
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [76.
1774 they called the Continental Congress and denied the right of parliament to tax them. But in 1775 and 1776 they joined the enemy, condemned the very principles they once advocated, treated congresses with contempt and even denounced the assembly for acting too radically. This "set of wretches," "shameless apostates," "a puny tribe of volun- tary slaves," "most obnoxious animals," should be hunted out and destroyed for self-preservation.'
The loyalists returned these compliments so far as they dared. They still remained divided into two classes-the extremists, or " non-associators," who believed rebellion was wicked and hopeless;2 and the moderates, who wished to be neutral. The radicals thought the colonies ought to have a greater share in local and imperial affairs, but advocated obedience to existing authorities until the constitution could be changed legally and peaceably. The other faction was willing, under public pressure, to sign the association, but yet were at heart loyal to the king. By sympathy or silence they helped on the revolution in its first stages. "We at present are all whigs," wrote a loyalist, in June, 1775, "until the arrival of the king's troops."3 The ultra-loyalists hated the usurped government and looked with contempt upon the weakness and timidity of the legal powers, whose temporiz- ing inactivity had given the revolutionists the advantage, and therefore turned their eyes to the British army and navy for relief and protection. Orderly despotism was preferred to the tyranny of a fickle and bloodthirsty mob. They de-
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 508-509: iii, 1552-1554, 1735-1738; vi, 787-788; 5th ser., iii, 1292. Cf. Gaine's N. Y. Gazette, nos. 1678, 1682, 1698, " Whigs and Tories;" ibid., no., 1680, " The Tory Creed;" Holt's N. Y. Journal, no. 1721, "Conduct of Loyalists;" Rivington's N. Y. Gazetteer," no. 99, " Whig and Tory."
2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 149-150. Loyalist sermon with doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance.
Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 238-242, 1087; iii, 884, 1552-1554. Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 30-31.
77
WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS
77]
nounced the policy of the whigs in supporting a scheme of independence as the "basest hypocrisy." They wished themselves in free England instead of tyrannous America.' " Are the friends of Great Britain and their property," cried one, "to be left exposed . . . to the dictates of an inhu- man rabble? " 2
Before loyalist pamphleteers like Cooper, Wilkins, Seabury and Inglis fled or were exiled, tory articles and tracts were numerous. After that there was comparative silence until the English took southern New York. An answer to " Com- mon Sense " appeared, but a whig mob destroyed both the manuscript and impression.3 All printers were warned not to publish loyalist tracts on pain of " death and destruction, ruin and perdition." "From this time," says Judge Jones, " no publication, in pamphlet or book form, ever appeared in New York, unless from England, in favor of the cause of Britain or in opposition to the tyranny of Congress."+ But this is not wholly true, for although the loyalist literature from now on was of an inferior character, still more or less continued to issue from the tory presses in New York city until the war closed.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 479; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1883), 62; cf. ibid., (1882), 205.
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 3, 1745-1752.
* Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 63, 64; Jour. of Prov. Cong., i, 377, 405, 406, 750; Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 187, 440, 514, 1389.
'Jones, Ilist. of N. Y., i, 65.
CHAPTER IV
COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS
COUNTY committees and district committees had been called into existence to enforce the non-importation agree- ments and to carry out the general association, and were soon principal organs of local government. By 1776 every county, except possibly Kings, had its committee.1 Tryon county led by organizing its committee in August, 1774,2 and others followed. There was little uniformity in method of election, number and activity. In Albany county eighteen districts elected 154 members of the county committee,' while Cumberland county had only five members." Westchester county had ninety members, elected at a mass meeting.5 New York's committee of one hundred was elected by the voters.6 In the other counties the committees were smaller, but varied greatly in numbers.
The sub-committees also varied in numbers and in the
1 It seems that Queens county was the last to organize. Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MS.S., i, 334; MS. Revolutionary Papers, iv, 121, 195; Gaine's N. Y. Gazette, nos. 1264, 1284. There is no record of the formation of a committee in Kings county. Cf. Memoirs of L. I. Hist. Soc., ii, 12, for an account of the revolutionary records of Kings county. They were carried away by the loyalists. Johnson, Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn, published as vol. iii of Memoirs of L. I. Hist. Soc., speaks on page 60 of the "committee of Kings county;" cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 219.
? Campbell, Annals of Tryon Co., 31-33.
$ Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 426.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1064-1066.
" Rivington's N. Y. Gazetteer, no. 108, May 11, 1775.
6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 427, 459; Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 489. 78
[78
79
79]
COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS
manner of appointment. In Albany county they were ap- pointed by the county committee 1 and numbered at least nineteen .? New York had no sub-committees. In Queens county they were organized by minorities." Town com- mittees were formed very early in Suffolk county.' The same was true of Tryon county.5 . In Ulster county every precinct had its local board, as was true also in Westchester county.6
These committees in southern New York disappeared with the British occupation, but continued in northern New York and along the Hudson until superseded by the state system of local government. In matters of organization there was considerable uniformity. Each body formed its own rules7 and had a chairman, secretary, and other neces- sary officers; but there was great divergence in tenure of office. As was natural, the most ardent whigs were mem- bers of the boards, but during the period from 1774 to 1776 not a few of the members were pronounced loyalists.8
There was a definite relationship among all the bodies growing out of the revolution. The Continental Congress stood at the head; then came the Provincial Congress or Convention, then the general committee on tories, then the county committees, and at the base, the district committees.
' Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., 21-22, 24.
' Ibid., 32-33.
"Onderdonk, Queens County Incidents, 29-30 : Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 304; Am. Archs., 4, iii, 887, 889; Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 39, 41; iv, 50.
' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 117.
$ Campbell, Annals of Tryon Co., 31-33.
'Dawson, Westchester Co., 113.
1 In Oct., 1775, 22 absent members were fined 20 shillings each by the Tryon county committee. MS. Sir William Johnson Papers, xxvi, no. 110.
8 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1073, for Albany county; ibid., ii, 644, iii, 457-459, 696, 825, for Dutchess county; MS. Revolutionery Papers, iv, 189; Proceed- ings of Aib. Co. Com., i, 145, 146, 173, 183-187, 198, 364, 365; Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 57-63; cf. Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 246.
80
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [80
The district committees watched the loyalists, made reports to the county committees, arrested dangerous tories and carried out instructions from the superior boards.1 Trial and punishment were usually left to the higher powers, although in some instances the local authorities tried and sentenced loyalists.2 Each body in the inquisitorial organi- zation had a wide field for independent action, but there was always a marked respect for instructions from above.'
Before August 3, 1775, when a case demanding action was presented, the county committees followed their own judgment and initiative, in accordance with the exigencies of the case. It was easy for these revolutionary bodies, varying in number and activity in each county, to become inquisitorial boards for the seizure, trial and punishment of loyalists. In fact, their work in connection with the asso- ciation was of this character in a mild form-a fact which made the transition naturally easier. With no laws and few precedents to guide them, these committees at first acted rather hesitatingly. Most cases of importance were referred to the Provincial Congress or Convention.4 At first there was a general conviction that all obnoxious loyalists should be tried, or at least sentenced, by the supreme body as a final court.5 As time passed, the county committees became more accustomed to their duties, cases multiplied, pre- cedents grew up and regulations were adopted until these boards acted finally on all cases.6
Though elected by the people, all the county committees,
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 210, 211-212.
? Ibid., iii, 134-135; v, 518, 548, 821, 1428; vi, 446; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 384; Min. Prov. Cong., ii, 54-57, 103-104; iii, 50; Dawson, Westchester Co., 113.
$ Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 272, 416.
4 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 12, 13, 35, 298, 448, 548, 1730-1731; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 361, 364, 372, 444, 449.
5 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1421-1422.
6 Ibid., v, 25C.
81
COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS
81]
after the system became established, were dependent upon the provincial bodies.' From them instructions were re- ceived, and to them appeals were constantly made for advice and help.2 The decisions of county boards were often re- versed by them.3 Frequent reports were made by the lower to the higher authorities. Greater harmony and uniformity gradually prevailed in the inquisitorial machine, since one common object was sought by all. All expenses were paid
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.