Loyalism in New York during the American revolution

STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Volume XIV]

[Number 1

LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

DURING THE

AMERICAN REVOLUTION

ALEXANDER CLARENCE FLICK, Ph.D.,

Sometime Univertity Fellow in History, Columbia University
Professor of European History in Syracuse University

fjork

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS

LONDON .- P. S. KING & SON

IQOI

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY

The religious and political side of loyalism — The loyalists were Americans,
not Englishmen — The origin of the loyalist party — Officialism as a factor
in loyalism — The " Leislerians " and the "Aristocrats " — The develop
ment of the colonial social-political groups — Zenger's trial, King's Col
lege controversy and the Stamp Act as party factors — Party changes
from 1770 to 1774 — The Continental Congress completes the organiza
tion of the loyalist party — The character and classes of loyalists

CHAPTER II
FINAL ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY

Loyalist opposition to the Continental Congress — Efforts of the last gen
eral assembly for peace — The Provincial Convention opposed by the
loyalists — Effect of Lexington on the loyalist cause — Work of the
committee of one hundred — The general association made a test of the
loyalists' position — The loyalists oppose the second Provincial Congress
— Attitude of the loyalists toward separation from England — The Decla
ration of Independence gives final form to the loyalist party 37

CHAPTER III

WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS

The treatment of the loyalists by the revolutionary government before
August 3, 1775, and after — The disarming of all " non-associators " —
The resolves of the Continental Congress of January 2, 1776 — The com
mittee on "intestine enemies" appointed in May, 1776 — The work of
the "standing committee" of July 9, 1776 — The terror of the mob and
ideas of liberty — The whigs and loyalists hate and abuse each other. ... 58

5] 5

6 CONTENTS [6

CHAPTER IV
COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS

PACKS

Origin of the county and district committees — Relation of the lower boards
to the higher ones — Action of the local committees before the act of
August 3, 1775 — Grounds for the arrest of loyalists — The various forms of
punishment — Loyalists in Tryon county — Loyalists in Orange, Dutchess
and Westchester counties— Loyalists in Queens and Richmond counties
— Character of the various local committees 78

CHAPTER V

ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE or THE DECLA
RATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Effect of the English occupation of southern New York on the loyalists —
English policy of arming the loyalists— Loyalists arm before the arrival
of the British — " Tory plots " — Thousands of loyalists enlist under Howe
— Governor Tryon made Major-General of the Provincial forces — Oliver
De Lancey commissioned Brigadier-General — Roger's Rangers — Fear of
the whigs — Activity of loyalists north of New York city — Effect of Bur-
goyne's campaign on the loyalists — Saratoga — Oriskany — Loyalists at
tack Schoharie in 1778, Chemung in 1779 and the Mohawk Valley in
1780-1 — Number of loyalist troops in New York — Help given the Brit-
iih by loyalists who were not soldiers 95

CHAPTER VI

COMMISSIONERS ON LOYALISTS, 1776-1781

Constitutional Convention called to organize a new state government —
Effect on status of loyalists — Loyalist petitions to the new government
— Whigs demand harsher treatment of loyalists — Resolution of July 16,
1776, defining citizenship and treason — Committees ordered to seize all
obnoxious lories — Washington seizes them and sends them 19 Connecti
cut — Convention takes cognizance of loyalists — Committee on loyalists
appointed September 21, 1776 — Organization and work of the committee
— Special committee to co-operate with General Schuyler — Treatment
of loyalists — A new committee of three appointed December 31, 1776 —
Loyalists offered the oath of allegiance — Uprising of loyalists in Dutchess
and Westchester counties, and in other parts of the state — A " Fleet
prison " for the loyalists — Loyalists ordered to be tried by court-martial
after March 31, 1777 — Courts of oyer and terminer — Work of the com
missioners on loyalists in 1777 — A third committee on loyalists created
April 3, 1778 — Work of the committee till 1781 — Oath of allegiance still
the test of loyalism — County committees after July 4, 1776 — None in
southern New York — Their activity in northern New York 1 16

7] CONTENTS j

CHAPTER VII
CONFISCATION AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE LOYALISTS

PACKS

Growth of the idea of confiscation of loyalist property — English precedents
— First act of confiscation August 3, 1775 — Scattered acts of confiscation
— After July 4, 1776, confiscations become more numerous — Various
orders about loyalist property — March 6, 1777, three paid commissioner*
appointed for each county north of New York city to sell the personal
property of loyalists — Work of the commissioners — Dutchess county the
best example — Sums realized — Difficult to reduce them to sterling values
— Office abolished May 12, 1784 — Real estate of loyalists held in trust
before October 22, 1779 — Act of October 22, 1779, attaints fifty-nine
loyalists and declares their property forfeited — Commissioners of for
feiture appointed for each of the four districts — Forfeited estates sold in
the middle district — Work of the commissioners in the western district —
Sales in the eastern district — Disposal of loyalist property in the south
ern district — Sales made by the surveyor general after 1788 — Sum re
alized by the state — Petitions to the legislature about property — Demo
cratic results of these sales 135

CHAPTER VIII
THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS

Loyalists oppose peace — Effort of England to provide for the loyalists in
the treaty of peace — New York refuses to comply with the terms of the
treaty — Act of May 12, 1784, disfranchising loyalists— Classes of New
York loyalists — Loyalists who remain in New York — Loyalist refugees
who return to their homes — Loyalists who leave the state forever — Their
flight after 1774 — They go to England, Canada and Nova Scotia — Their
settlements in Nova Scotia — Their emigration to Canada — Numbers ... 161

CHAPTER IX

TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS BY GREAT BRITAIN

Early promises of aid to loyalists — Treatment of loyalists by the military
authorities — Assistance given to them by the civil powers — Treatment of
loyalists in Canada and Nova Scotia before 1783 — Effect of peace on
their situation — After the war they receive lands, provisions, tools and
seeds in Nova Scotia — Those who went to Canada were treated similarly
— Offices given to prominent loyalists — Temporary help given to loyalists
who fled to England before 1783 — Committee to examine claims — Peti
tions for compensation for losses after the war — A commission appointed
to examine them — Work of the commission — Two commissioners sent to
British America — Results of the examinations — Amount received by
New York loyalists 18

8 CONTENTS [^

APPENDIX

PAGES

1. Salei of forfeited estates in the southern district 215

2. Sales of forfeited estates in the middle district 257

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 273

CHAPTER I

RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY.

LOYALISM, as believed and practiced during the Amer
ican revolution, had both a religious and a political side. It
was based upon the fundamental teachings of Anglicanism,
which made loyalty to the ruler and obedience to law re
ligious duties.1 This did not mean abject submission to acts
looked upon as blunders, or as being unjust. It was not
" non-resistance and passive obedience," for none upheld
and used with more telling effect than the loyalists the sacred
right of petition and remonstrance." Only when the issue
came to be one between submission to the will of the king
and parliament, as expressed in law, and resistance by re
bellion or revolution, did religious duty enforce^obedience.
The political science of Anglicanism was, therefore, a funda
mental principle in loyalism.

1 Dr. Myles Cooper, the President of King's College and the recognized clerical
leader of the loyalists in 1 774, set forth this phase of loyalism best. God, he said,
established the laws of government, ordained the British power and commanded all
to obey authority. American Querist, etc., queries 90-100. '"The laws of heaven
and earth " forbade rebellion. To threaten open disrespect to government was
" an unpardonable crime." A Friendly Address, etc., 5. " The principles of sub
mission and obedience to lawful authority are inseparable fromTa sound, genuine
member of the Church of England as any religious principles." That church had
three homilies on obedience and six on rebellion. Its members prayed to be made
loyal. The church was ashamed of those who disregarded these sacred principles.
Ibid., 45-49.

2 Dr. Myles Cooper asserted that subjects might remonstrate against unjust law*
forced upon them. A Friendly Address, etc., 5, 43. Other loyalists took the same
position. Chandler, What Think Ye of Congressman ?, 44-48.

9] 9

I O LO YALISM IN NE W YORK [ ! o

Anglicanism did not appear as a factor in colonial politics
in New York until the latter part of the seventeenth century,
though introduced with the English occupation of New
Netherland.1 From that time until the revolution, however,
it was one of the most potent influences in shaping colonial
parties. It valiantly upheld royal prerogatives.2 Its clergy
were " nurtured in sentiments of loyalty." • Its prayers as
cended constantly for the king and his officers. It furnished
the best arguments for loyalism and taught them to its com
municants. It spread rapidly over the colony. The con
servative Dutch and not a few of the aristocratic Huguenot
families joined the English church.3 By 1775 the Episcopa
lians constituted the most influential element of the popula
tion.

With scarcely an exception the Anglican ministers were
ardent loyalists and the leaders in their communities. The
writers and pamphleteers, who furnished the keen, brainy
defense of loyalism, were teachers and priests of that faith.4
The leading loyalists, who were active in a military or
civil capacity during the war, were members of that church.
The rank and file of loyalists were to a large extent believ
ers in that creed. Thus loyalism and Anglicanism were
largely united in practice as they were in theory and in
logic.5

lDocs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iii, 59.

* Ibid., viii, 208; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 211.

8 Cf. John Adams'1 Diary for August 21, 1774, while visiting in New York city.

* Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 208.

8 In the time of the tea riots a loyalist wrote from New York : " You would
perhaps think it proper to ask whether no Church of England people were among
them [the rioters]. Yes, there were, to their eternal shame be it spoken! But
in general they were interested in the motion, either as smugglers of goods, or as
being over-burdened with dry-goods they know not how to pay for. . . . But, sir,
they are few in number. Believe me, the Presbyterians have been the chief and
principal instruments in all these flaming measures. . . . Government at home,

! j 1 RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY l j

On its political side loyalism stood for the recognition of
law as against rebellion in any form,1 for the unity of the
empire as against a separate, independent existence of the
colonies, and for monarchy instead of republicanism.2 It
clung to the established order of things ; in its conservatism
it avoided dangerous " revolutionary principles" and shunned
association with those "that are given to change."1 This
did not mean that the loyalists upheld England's colonial
system in all its features, or that they sanctioned her unwise
policy in dealing with the colonists.4 If anything, in the
days before the revolution, they were more active than the
whigs in seeking to modify that system and to correct the
known abuses.6 Their method was to operate through
legally organized bodies in ways provided by the constitu-

if they mean to look for genuine loyalty and cordial affection to the state, will
nowhere find it except in the hearts of the professors of the Church of England.
. . . The Church of England people . . . did, from principle . . . everything
they could ... to stop the rapid progress of sedition." Am. Archs., 4th ser.,
i, 301.

1 Whether the British parliament is right or wrong, our actions have been " in
tolerant," asserted Dr. Cooper. A Friendly Address, etc., 4. He despised the
radical whigs of Suffolk co., Mass., whom he called " these rebellious republi
cans, these hair-brained fanatics, mad and distracted as the Anabaptists of Muns-
ter." Ibid., 29. "Count the cost of rebellion and you will stop it." Ibid., 33;
ibid., 43, 45. " If one can violate law, all can — then anarchy results." Seabury,
The Congress Canvassed, etc., 39-43; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress
Now? 4 1-43, 44-48.

'Cooper, American Querist, etc., queries 80-89; Cooper, A Friendly Address^
etc., 24: Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc,, 52-59.

'Cooper, American Querist, queries 99-100.

4 Dr. Cooper was inclined to think the tea duty " dangerous to constitutional
liberty." A Friendly Address, etc., 13, 31; Seabury, /f View of the Controversy^
etc., 23; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now? 7.

5 Dr. Cooper declared the Stamp Act to be contrary to American rights, and ap
proved of the opposition to the duties on paper, glass, et cetera. A Friendly
Address, etc., 43.

12 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ ! 2

tion. They had positive remedies to suggest which, they
constantly insisted, would have secured in time every de
mand of the whigs except independence.1

The loyalists were Americans, not Englishmen. They
felt, however, that the bes^ "interests of the colonies would
be served by remaining a part of the great empire,2 even
though laboring under heavy and grievous burdens, because
they believed that England's sense of justice would soon
lead to the removal of the hardships. Hence, before inde
pendence through revolution became the paramount issue,
many loyalists favored mild measures such as non-im
portation and non-exportation, while only the royal officials
and Anglican clergy and teachers — the ultra-loyalists — de-

1 The plan submitted by Dr. Cooper was " a formal allowance of the rightful
supremacy in general of Great Britain over the American colonies — a declaration
of our opposition to a state of independence with a corresponding behaviour — a
respectful remonstrance on the subject of taxation — an assurance of our willingness
to contribute, in some equitable proportion,towards defray ing the public expense —
and the proposal of a reasonable plan for a general American constitution." A
Friendly Address, etc., 43; Seabury, FreeThoughis, etc. ,46-48; Seabury, 7 he Con
gress Canvassed, etc., 44-47,48, 52-59. Seabury advocated the " settlement of an
American constitution," granting self-government under the sovereign imperial par
liament. Prudence would secure that. Then " the dependence of the colonies . . .
will be fixed on a firm foundation; the sovereign authority of parliament over all
dominions of the empire will be established; and the mother country and her col
onies will be knit together in one grand, firm and compact body." A View of the
Controversy y etc., 21-23; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress A iw/' 42-48.

2 "My ancestors were among the first Englishmen who settled in America. I
have no interest but in America. I have not a relation out of it that I know of.
Yet, let me die ! but I had rather be reduced to the last shilling, than that the im
perial dignity of Great Britain should sink, or be controlled, by any people or
power on earth." Seabury, A View of the Controversy, z\.c., 23. Another prom-
nent loyalist said, " My most earnest wish is for the happiness of America. I con
sider Great Britain and her colonies ... as hut one body, which must be af
fected throughout by the sufferings of any one member. I consider them as con
stituting one great and illustrious family to which I have the honor to belong; and
I pray that its tranquility may be speedily restored, and that peace and harmony
may forever reign through every part of it." Chandler, What 7^hink Ye of Con
gress Now ? 44—48.

j.l RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 13

nounced them.1 After July 4, 1776, the loyalists, seeing
that the day of argument and moderation was past, believed
that the integrity of the empire and the happiness of Amer
ica could be secured only by crushing the revolutionary
spirit and by subduing their rebellious brethren by force.
This conviction, supplemented by the bitterness caused by
the hardships and persecutions suffered at the hands of
their whig countrymen, led them to sanction England's
military program.2 As they viewed the situation, their per
sonal hopes and the future of their country now depended
entirely upon the success of British arms.

The imperial government had the encouragement, advice,
material aid and services of the loyalists. For seven years
their cause was common with that of England in the means
used and the immediate object, but not in the purpose or
ultimate end. The loyalists had no more idea of surrender
ing the principles involved in the contest before 1775 than
the whigs. But revolution had first to be crushed. The
unexpected success of the revolution, however, blasted all
their hopes and threw them upon either the tender mercies
of their victorious fellow citizens, or the charity of Great
Britain.

The colonial parties of New York, or more strictly the
groups representing certain political tendencies, were pri
marily religious and social. Out of these elements and the
local and imperial civic conditions and relations grew the
political differences.3 With the planting of officialism, the

1 For the attitude of extreme loyalists, cf. Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc.,
35-42; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 3-36; Chandler, What Think Ye of Con
gress Now? 27-37.

2 They maintained that the ground of contest had been completely changed
Before, it was a struggle against English despotism, but now it was a fight against
American independence and tyranny. The Letters of Papinian, Preface, iii,
probably written by Rev. Charles Inglis.

'Golden wrote in 1770: " From the different political and religious principle! of

LO YAL1SM IN NE W YORK

[ \ 4

introduction of Anglicanism, the development of a type of
feudalism and the growth of large fortunes in trade, came that
community in interests, unity in beliefs and aristocratic rank
which formed the environment for the doctrine of loyalism.

Whatever force or influence tended to emphasize or mag
nify centralized imperial or colonial power, to sanctify
kingly prerogative, to subordinate colonial to imperial affairs,
to enforce obedience to law, to develop social interests which
depended for their triumph on the maintenance of a con
nection with England, to extend the Anglican church, to
suppress the hazy democratic ideas that were in the air, to
curtail the growing power of the general assembly, or to
accumulate property in the hands of the few, was laying the
foundation for the loyalist party.

The colonial period was marked by a contest between a
strong and exclusive executive power, such as was upheld
by the directors of the West India Company, the English
government, and the Anglican church, on the one hand,
and local rights and privileges, such as were demanded by
the Dutch, French and English subjects and set forth in the
Calvinistic creeds and the acts and resolves of the assem
blies, on the other hand. This struggle had most to do
with the formation of those religious-political groups which
were to develop into the whig and loyalist parties of the
revolution. The dominant political force in the conflict
was officialism, that system by which the king's powers were
extended to the province through a distinct class of depend
ent agents. The governor, as the representative of the
doctrine,1 gathered about him all those elements that upheld

the inhabitants, opposite parties have existed at all times, and will exist in this
Province, which at different times have taken their denominations from some dis
tinguished person or family who have appeared at their head." N. Y. Hitt.
Soc. Colls. (1877), 223.

1 "We derive our authority from God and the Company, not from a few ignorant
subjects," boasted Stuyvesant. Cf. the statement of Lord Cornbury, Docs. rtl. to
N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 1122.

j,-| RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 15

the royal prerogatives and sought to maintain them un
changed. Hence every concession demanded and every
privilege assumed by the popular branch of the govern
ment were contested by the crown officers.

The numerous petitions sent to England by the colonial
executives l begging for help did not go unheeded. British
authorities appreciated the necessity of upholding the hands
of the colonial royal officials in order to keep the colonies
in a state of subordination. Again and again decisions were
rendered to strengthen the governor's powers or to support
his recommendations.2 The trade laws, the billeting act, the
stamp act, the tea-tax, the declaratory act, and finally, war
itself, were simply parts of the policy of the English gov
ernment to support its powers as exercised through the
king's agents. Nevertheless, by 1774 many of the powers
which the governors possessed in 1689 had been lost.3
The strength of the official class had been much diminished,
though its pretensions were still large and its influence war
sufficient to make it the nucleus about which rallied the
loyalist party.4

Not until 1689 did social-political groups appear with
clearness in the province. Then it became apparent that
the shop-keepers, small farmers, sailors, shipwrights, poor
traders and artisans were not in sympathy with the patroons,
rich fur-traders, merchants, lawyers and crown officers. At
that time the two groups were called " Leislerians " and

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., v, 900, 902, 937, 941, 975; vi, 76, 285, 287, 379,
404, 408, 529, 536; vii, 548, 832, 994.

*Ibid., viii, 815; N. Y. Assemb. Jour. (1767-1776), 34; N. Y. Hist. Soc.
Colls. (1876), 421.

8 Cf. Explanation of the loss of the New York governor's prerogatives, by Gov
ernor Shirley. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., v, 432-437; Cf. Smith, Hist, of
N. Y. (Albany, 1814), 441.

4 Cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 45.

1 6 L O YAL1SM IN NE W YORK [ 1 6

" Aristocrats." l The leaders of the latter faction were Peter
Schuyler,2 Nicholas Bayard,3 Frederick Phillipse/ Stephen
Van Cortlandt5 and Robert Livingston.6 They wished to
continue government under authority from James II, until
definite instructions should be received from king William.7
Both factions professed loyalty to the new sovereign, but the
aristocrats insisted upon showing it in a strictly legal way
and denounced the hasty, unwarranted course of the Leis-
lerians. The issue at this time, therefore, was one of law and
precedent rather than of loyalism. It must be remembered,
however, that legality was one of the prime factors in the
loyalist's creed.

From 1690 until the events of the revolution brought
about a final readjustment of party lines and the appearance
of whigs and loyalists, these two factions can be traced more
or less distinctly. In the modern sense they were not par
ties, but they did bear a resemblance to the parties in Eng
land at that period. Membership was not determined by
race or speech, Dutch, French and English being found on
both sides ; nor was it determined even by a decided differ
ence in political principles, but rather by creed, wealth and
social position. A divergence, however, in political ideas
is early noticeable, which became more defined with the
passing of time, until at the outbreak of the revolution it had
become fundamental.

1 Cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 508. The " Aristocrats" were also called
" Jacobites" by the " Leislerians."

* In the contest over the courts he joined the popular party.
8 He was a deacon in the Dutch Reformed Church.

4 His family were loyalists.

5 He was also a Dutch Reformed Church deacon.

•He joined the liberal party in 1698. Dunlap, Hist, of the Province of N. Y.,
i, 230. For a further list of " Aristocrats," cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 849.
7 /**</., iii, 636.

lj-\ RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY i]

Important events like Leisler's rebellion, the contest over
courts and the tenure of judges, Zenger's trial, the founding
of King's College, the stamp act, the laying of the tea duty,
the first Continental Congress, and the Declaration of Inde
pendence called forth an intense partisan spirit and produced
readjustments of party adherents and a further differentiation
of principles. After allowing for these changes in the mem
bership and motives of the two groups, it can be said that
they were representative of those elements which, after nearly
a century, were to produce the whig and loyalist parties of
the revolution. Neither side held a fixed set of politi
cal tenets from 1690 to 1776, but only revealed connected
tendencies.1 At times the aristocratic party was in accord
with the liberty party in its contest for some of the elements
of self-government, but as a rule it upheld parliamentary
supremacy and the royal prerogatives.

Party feeling was moulded by circumstances. After the
death of governor Bellomont, it was so intense that civil war
was scarcely averted,2 while in 1719 governor Hunter wrote
that " the very name of party or faction seems to be forgot
ten."3 Under Cosby it was embittered by rival newspapers
and personal and family feuds.4 Zenger's trial, which was
made a party issue, shows the construction of the two fac
tions.5 In the days of Leisler the groups were formed on
lines of wealth and social rank. Persons of all faiths and
tongues were found on both sides. Fifty years later, the

1 Crown officials with liberal views were sometimes found on the popular side-
Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 303, 322, 323, 379, 380, 400, 401, 508, 515 620,
848, etc.

2 Ibid., 848, 881, 916, 925, 946-948.

3 Ibid.,v, 493, 522, 529; Smith, Hist, of N. Y. (Albany, 1814), 227.

4 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vi, 636. Report of Privy Council on New
York.

</., v, 982; vi, 5, 6, 7, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80; vii, 528, 909.

I g L O YALISM IN A£ W YORK [ j g

" court party" no longer held all the aristocracy in its
ranks. The Livingstons, Philip Schuyler, Adolph Phillipse
and others, all Calvinists or Lutherans, had then shifted to
the popular party. Religion had become a political factor
of considerable force. Nearly all the Anglicans of property
and wealth, but only a few rich Hollanders and Huguenots
of other creeds, were then in the " court party." The two
parties had also become more clearly divided on political
issues, though they still held common ground on some of
the great questions at issue between the mother country
and the colony.

The sectarian controversy over King's College helped to
define the parties still further.1 It threw into the foreground
individual animosities and denominational bigotry. The
" Episcopalian party " and the " DeLancey party " now came
to be synonyms for the " court party," while their opponents
were called the "Presbyterian party" or the "Livingston
party.'" Creed had become an important basis of political
organization. William Livingston voiced the sentiments of his
party when he declared that the proposition of Archbishop
Seeker to establish an Anglican college at public expense,
and the tory strivings of the DeLancey clique, were all parts
of one plan to strengthen the royal prerogatives at the ex
pense of popular rights, and to enlarge the power and or
ganization of the episcopacy against non-conformists.3
Whatever may have been the motives involved, the Angli-

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vi, 625, 685,777, 9IO> 9*3» v"» 2I7» 371; Jones,
Hist. o/A'. Y., i, 3, 10-16; cf. Am. Hist. Rev., i, 240; cf. Mem. Hist. ofN. Y.City,
ii, 303; cf. Beardsley, Lije of Samuel Johnson.

* Smith, Hist, of N. Y. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., iv), 273. These names were still
used for the parties in 1774. Cf. John Adams'1 Diary for Aug. 20, 1774. For
leading members of each party, cf. Dunlap, Hist, of Province of N. Y.,'\, 395-396.

* Independent Reflector in Gaine's N. Y. Mercury, no. 43, June 4, 1753; cf.
Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., i, 12-17; <•/"• Smith, Hist, of N.. Y. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls.,
iv), 191 ; cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col.. Hist., vi, 913.

!^1 RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 19

cans won an immediate victory in the contest, though it
cost them defeat at the polls in the next election.1

Both parties united against the stamp act. " It occasioned,"
said Golden, " a universal tumult." 2 He complained for
months of standing almost alone in upholding the acts of
parliament and the royal rights. Only a few " disinterested
friends," like General Gage, Major James, Sir William John
son and the Church of England ministers, supported him.3
He believed, however, that " great numbers in the city"
were intimidated, and that the people outside of the metrop
olis were " absolutely free from the seditious spirit." 4 The
anarchy of the fickle mob soon alienated the conservatives.5
The great body of the business men, professional men and
land-owners began to urge moderation and the adoption of
legal methods of redress. At first they had encouraged the
mob and used it, but they soon began to fear it. Many of
the DeLancey party took the first opportunity to desert the
" opposition."6 A few extremists, the Episcopalian clergy
and royal officers, horrified at the thought of rebellion, took
the British side and defended the stamp act.7 They sneered
at the Stamp Act Congress and denounced it as "unconsti
tutional and unlawful." 8 With the repeal of the stamp act,

1 A'. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1876), 34.

1 Ibid. (1877), 27; Jones, Hist, of N. >'., i, 18; cf. Dawson, Westchester Co.,
4, n. 2.

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1876), 462, (1877), '27, 44, 49; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col.
Hist., vii, 790.

* A". Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 61, 62, 77. But this was one of Colden's hasty
judgments. Cf. Ibid., 115, and Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vii, 812, 838, 845,
849, 910.

5 A'. Y. City during the Revolution, 41-49; cf. Mag. of Am. Hist., i, 361-362.

•A'. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 61.

1 N. Y. Mercury, May 20, 1765, no. 708; June 17, 1765, no. 712. Cf. N. Y.
Assemb. Jour., ii, 787.

8 A'. Y. Gazette, Feb. 3, 1776; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 35-

20 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [2O

the party lines, obscured by the excitement over that
measure, reappeared. In the election of 1768 " the whole
force of both sides" was exerted, and the " whig interest"
was overwhelmingly defeated.1 All the DeLancey men who
were elected, save one, became loyalists.2 Peter Van Schaack
predicted that the " party spirit which had been aroused
would never be extinguished."3

By 1770 the two parties had become fairly well distin
guished and defined. Each was now more nearly than ever
before a distinct political organization, with its own caucus,
leaders, candidates, platform and method of work. Each
side was subdivided into liberals and conservatives. The
extreme wing of the tory party was still led by Golden and
his coterie. They stood for a rigid execution of imperial
law. The moderates, who constituted a large majority of
the party, did not wholly sympathize with the conservative
element. They were guided by the aristocratic landholders,
merchants and traders, mostly of the Anglican 'persuasion.
But some Lutherans, members of the Dutch Reformed con
gregations and even "several Presbyterians" were found
among the "friends of government."4 That party was no
longer co-extensive with the established church, a proof that
political issues were fast becoming paramount.

The party was bound together by a social network of the
influential families like the De Puysters, the Waltons, the
Crugers, and the De Lanceys, who were united by blood or
marriage to more than half of the aristocracy of the Hudson
Valley.* Its members venerated forms and traditions. Loy-

1N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), l82» 211. 2 Jones, Hist, of Ar. Y., i, 18.
8 Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack.

4 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 211.

5 A few of the other prominent families were the Verplancks, Rensselaers, Wattses,
Van Cortlandts, Joneses, Coldens, Morrises, Lispenards, Johnsons, Bayards and
Cuylers. Cf. Dunlap, Hist, of the Province of N. Y., i, 396; cf. Smith, Hist, of
N. Y. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., iv), 273.

2I-j RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 21

alty was a part of their religious teaching. The republican
spirit in the colony was by them condemned and the empire
praised. They loved the king and respected parliament, but
many of them stood up as valiantly as the whigs for the
American interpretation of the British constitution. Their
rights once secured, their fondest hope was peace, a united
empire, and friendly commercial relations. Owing to these
political beliefs many of the loyalists Were not averse to a
mild show of force in order to bring Great Britain to terms.
After 1770, every important event became a party ques
tion. The McDougal trial was made a distinct political issue,1
but in this neither party won a decisive victory.' The parties
divided over non- importation, when all duties but that on
tea were removed. " We have two parties violently opposed
to each other," wrote Golden.3 The popular party still fav
ored boycotting all English goods.4 The tories wished to
confine this policy to tea alone, canvassed the city, found
that 3,000 out of 4,154 favored the course they recommended,
and won the day.5 The attempt made to collect the tea-tax
aroused party discussions.6 The three ''public gazettes
teemed with articles upon it."7 The Sons of Liberty fav
ored a general non-consumption agreement,8 but the tories

1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 212; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. #«/., viii, 208,
213.

2 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 29-33.
*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 220,
4 Leake, Life of John Lamb, 63-64.

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 22O> 223> 224» 227» 228» 23°» 251. Docs> reL
to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 218.

6 Ibid., 400-401.

7 Ibid., 408. Governor Tryon said they were written " alternately by good citi
zens and fair traders, by men of cool sense and just discernment, on the one hand,
by fraudulent dealers, artful smugglers, inflamatory politicians and patriots on the
other." But this is a prejudiced loyalist's statement.

8 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 403, 408.

22 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [2 2

were not with them in 1773 as in 1765. Having a majority
in the three branches of the government,1 the latter took
things rather moderately though in the assembly they
named a committee of correspondence.' Although the Bos
ton Port Bill became " the subject of all conversation," many
ardent tories believed that Boston ought to pay for the
" drowned tea." 3 Fearing that the whig leaders would " run
the city into dangerous measures," they attended the mass
meeting called to discuss the situation and elected a safe
majority of the committee of fifty-one.*

It must be remembered that at this time the contest was
not one between those who favored and those who opposed
the acts of the English government — for both parties opposed
them — but was over the form which that opposition should
take. The ultra-tories who upheld the acts of parliament
took no part whatever in these proceedings.6 The liberal
tories acted with " a resolution to prevent any violent or rash
measures being entered into, and to preserve the peace of
the colony." ' A general non-importation agreement was
not revived, since all the counties but Suffolk opposed the
idea.7 The commfttee of fifty-one was controlled by moder
ate loyalists, yet it was one of the strongest factors in under
mining the power of the crown and parliament. It helped
to call the Continental Congress, which usurped authority

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 248, 249; N. Y. Hist. Soc. 6W/j.(i8;7), 218.

1 A'. Y. Assemb. Jour. (1767-1776, 8th part), 7, 13, 14, 16, 102, 105; Docs. rel.
to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 417.

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 3395 Am- Archs., 4 ser., i, 289.

* Ibid., 302, 293; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 439, 467; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls.
(1877), 342. No less than twenty-one members of the committee later became
avowed loyalists.

5 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 34; Dawson, Westchester Co., u.

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 342.

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 297, 702, 703; Leake, Life of John Lamb, 87.

2 3] RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 2$

not delegated to it, raised the standard of armed revolution
and closed the door of reconciliation, which it was instructed
to open as widely as possible, overthrew monarchy and cre
ated a republic.1

The election of delegates to the Continental Congress was
made a political issue.'2 Each party had its ticket. In the
committee of fifty-one the moderate loyalists won,3 as they
also did at the polls.4 Livingston and Low were moderate
whigs, while Duane, Jay and Alsop were looked upon as
loyalists.5 All except Livingston were Anglicans.6 " A great
deal of pains has been taken," wrote Colden, " to persuade
the counties to choose delegates for the Congress, or to
adopt those sent by the city." 7 Westchester, Dutchess and
Albany authorized the " city delegates" to act for them.8
Kings, Suffolk and Orange sent representatives of their own.9
Cumberland, Gloucester, Charlotte, Tryon, Richmond, Ulster
and Queens paid no attention to the demand.10 Not even
half a dozen in Queens county could be induced to meet to
consider the matter, while in Orange and other counties
twenty out of over a thousand freeholders elected the dele
gates.11 In Westchester county representatives were chosen
by only four towns.1'2 " It is notorious," asserted Seabury,
" that in some districts only three or four met and chose

1 Cf. Dawson, Westchester Co., 12, 13.

2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 302, 307, 308.

* Ibid., 308; Rivingtoris Gazette, July 14, 1774; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877),
346, 348.

* Ibid., 352; Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 320, 321; Leake, Life of John Lamb, 94;
Jones, Hist, of N. P., i, 464.

5 Ibid., 34; Dawson, Westchesler Co., II, n. I, 34, n. 3.

*John Adams' Diary, August 22, 1774.

7 Docs, re I. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 493.

*Jour. ofCont. Cong., Sept. 5, 1774. Credentials of delegates. * Ibid.

™Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 493. » Ibid.

13 Dawson, Westchester Co., 29.

24 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

themselves to be a committee on this most important occasion.
So that, taking the whole province together, I am confident
your delegates had not the voice of an hundredth part of
the people in their favor." ] Statements like this represent
the feelings of the ultra-loyalists. Though they are exagger
ations, still they show the significant fact that the rural dis
tricts of New York were indifferent or hostile to the Conti
nental Congress.'

The moderate loyalists looked not unfavorably upon the
Continental Congress.3 While the extremists did not
wholly sanction it, yet they hoped for some beneficial re
sult. Dr. Cooper rejoiced that it took the dispute out of
the hands of the rabble.4 " A redress of grievances, and a
firm union between Great Britain and America upon consti
tutional principles, was their only aim," wrote the severe
loyalist historian, Judge Thomas Jones.5 Even Colden
hoped that Congress would " produce some good." 6 Others
thought the " wisdom and prudence of Congress " might
avert rebellion.7 All hoped or expected that peace would
be the result.8 The first public declaration of the thorough-

1 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 13, 14; Chandler, What Think Ye of
Congress Now?, 18. He asserted that in every place outside of New York city
the non-voters far outnumbered the voters.

*Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii,488, 492, 493; Onderdonk, Queens Co., 16;
Dawson, Westchester Co., 35; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now?, 18.

8 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 34, 35, 449-468. All moderates, and they were not a
few, looked to a general American Congress for obtaining a restoration of tran-
quility and a reconciliation with Great Britain. Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc.,
30; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 2; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 20-
24; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now?, 6.

4 Cooper, American Querist, etc., Queries 90-100.

5 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., \, 35. 6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 35°-

7 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 2.

8 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 12, 22,24; Cooper, A Friendly Ad
dress, etc., 30; Cooper, American Querist, etc., query 90; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls.
(1877). 341.

2 5] RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 2$

going loyalists came from the town of Rye, Westchester
county, September 24, 1774. It was a manifesto of loyalism.
Content with English rule, as organized in the imperial
parliament and in the province, and happy as subjects of
George III., they discountenanced all attempts to disrupt
the existing relations.1

Nothing is clearer than that the Continental Congress did
not meet, intentionally, as a revolutionary body. There was
no design to declare for armed resistance and few, if any,
dreamed of a Declaration of Independence. The sole ob
ject was to uphold the American interpretation of the polit
ical relations of the various local governments to the imperial
government, and to accomplish that by united but moderate
measures. Yet this body, to the horror of the loyalists,
was soon diverted from its original purpose and became an
instrument for the promotion of revolution and independence.

No sooner had Congress convened than the loyalists be
came very active. They expressed their political beliefs
with a greater liberty than had been known in years.'2 More
loyalist tracts, pamphlets, sermons and letters were printed
" in favor of administration, and against measures which may
be offensive to parliament, than in all the colonies put to
gether."3 Foremost among the loyalist writers were Dr.
Myles Cooper,4 Dr. Samuel Seabury, Rev. T. B. Chandler,
Isaac Wilkins, Rev. Charles Inglis and Rev. John Vardill,
all staunch Episcopalians, whose philippics were hurled
against Congress.5 "The turbulent, factious few" were sup-

1 Rivinsrtor? 's Ar. Y. Gazetteer, no. 78, Oct. 23, 1774; Dawson, Westchester Co.,
32; Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 34.

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 359> 36o» 367; Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 373.

SA^. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 368.

* Golden said he was the supposed author of almost every loyalist pamphlet.
Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 297, 898.

5 Cf. Tyler, Literary Hist, of Am. Rev.; cf. Perry, Hist, of Am. Episc. Church.

26 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [26

pressed.1 It was generally believed, however, that the " mod
erate, prudent men" would prevent radical measures.'2 Gal
loway's "Plan of Accommodation" was regarded by some as
a solution of the problem. Duane and Jay favored it3 and
Golden pronounced it a " rational mode of proceeding, evi
dently tending to a reconciliation."4

The loyalists watched Congress with the keenest interest,
but they hoped for bread and got a stone. Peace and not war
was what they wanted. The counties were almost wholly
for moderate measures.5 " A large majority of the mer
chants and people" of the city opposed a non-intercourse
act. After Congress adjourned Golden wrote to Lord Dart
mouth that "a great majority in this province are very far
from approving of the dangerous and extravagant measures"
and longed for a reconciliation.6 Loyalists felt that Congress
had betrayed them. They had hoped, wrote Seabury, that
"the wisdom and prudence of Congress" would deliver the
colonies from rampant rebellion and bring peace, but that
body broke up " without ever attempting it," and " basely
betrayed the interests of all the colonies." 7

It was asserted that the New York delegates must have
been forced to sign the acts to make the colonies rebels, to
shut the courts, to replace the regular government by com
mittees and to call a second congress.8 The delegates had

1 A'. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 367, 368; Am. Archs., 4 ser., i, 327.
*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 360.
'Dawson, Westchester Co., 33, 34.
4 A^. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 374.

6 Ibid., 368; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 1-6; Cf. Memoirs of Henry
Van Schaack, 33.

•A'. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 369, 375.

7 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., I, 2; cf. Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 30;
Cj. Memoirs of Henry Van Schaack, 28, note.

8 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 7-11.

27] KISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 2/

been unfairly elected. The committee of New York city
had no right to dictate to the counties, or to regard silent
counties as favoring a congress. Should they be bound by
its acts then ?' The people were quiet only because they
expected peace.2 But congress assumed the power of leg
islation and foisted the association upon the people and
ordered committees to enforce it.3 The laws of a congress
were made to supersede the provincial laws, and liberty to
depend upon the will of a committee.* " You have blustered
and bellowed," mockingly wrote a loyalist pamphleteer,
" and swaggered and bragged that no British parliament
should dispose of a penny of your money without your
leave, and now you suffer yourselves to be bullied by a
congress and cowed by a committee." Now you find that
legislation and taxation go together. Your liberty and
property are at the mercy of a committee. This is indeed
a new " passive obedience and non-resistance." 5

The non-intercourse and non-consumption agreements, it
was said, will shut the colonies off from the whole world.
" Can we think to threaten and bully and frighten the supreme
government of the nation into a compliance with our de
mands?" The injury to America in one year will be greater
than the three-penny tea-duty will amount to in twenty
years. The farmers will suffer most, since scheming mer
chants and wily traders are at the bottom of all this con
fusion.6 But " our sovereign lords and masters, the high and
mighty delegates in grand Continental Congress assembled
have ordered and directed it." Tyrannical committees have
been appointed to execute it. Obedience to such a com
mand is slavery. The New York city committee will then

1 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 13, 14. 2 Ibid., 20-24.

3 Ibid., 25-29. * Ibid., 30, 3 1 . 5 Ibid., 33-38.

6 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 10, n, 19-31, 33, 34.

28 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [2g

order the county committees to enforce the edicts. Will you
submit to such tyranny and abject slavery? Will you
choose committees or let them be chosen? " Let us ignore
the half-dozen fools who meet and choose themselves a com
mittee. Let us assert our freedom and, if necessary, as
semble ourselves." ' These seditious committeemen are not
defending our rights and liberties, but are " making us the
most abject slaves that ever existed." " Renounce all depend
ence on congresses and committees. They have neglected
or betrayed your interests. Turn your eyes to your consti
tutional representatives." They will soon meet. Trust
them to secure peace/

You are honor-bound to the English government. You
ought, therefore, to oppose the laws of congress. They
cannot be executed without violating known laws. The
laws of God, nature and New York all forbid your hinder
ing a man in his regular business. Can the laws of congress
do it, then? Is any one bound to obey the acts of that body?3
Why, all your imagined evils endured for a century are not
so bad as these for a year. You can never justify violent
means of redress until all peaceable, constitutional ones have
been tried.4

The disappointment of the loyalists at the course followed
by Congress is not difficult of explanation. That body was
a voluntary association, with no legal authority to bind the
colonists in any degree. It was not empowered to exercise
legislative functions, nor to exact obedience under legal pen-

1 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 37. Cf. Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress
Now ? 6. Let the " friends to order and government," suggested Dr. Cooper,
" assume the courage openly to declare their sentiments." A Friendly Address,
etc., 34.

1 Seabury, Free Thonghis, etc., 39-48.

3 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, tic., 39-43; Free Thoughts, etc., 46-48;
Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now? 6-17.

4 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 44-47.

29] RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 2C;

alties. At most it could only recommend certain lines of
action. The loyalists declared that it exceeded the authority
delegated to it, and therefore its acts were unwarrantable
and revolutionary. Hence it was to be expected that dis
content and alarm should arise in the hearts of those who
hoped for, and were promised, something quite different.
They merely refused to be forced into rebellion, and decided
to repudiate the decrees which were bringing war and ruin
to them instead of peace and quiet. Consequently, the dis
content and opposition which sprang up all over the pro
vince were not so surprising.

The agriculturists, who had refused to take action in seven
counties regarding the calling of a Continental Congress,
were not injured by a tea-tax nearly so much as by political
disturbances, non intercourse and war. Hence they turned
a deaf car to the complaints of the city merchants and of the
Sons of Liberty, and ignored the methods of redress ordered
by Congress. New York city and Albany, the mercantile
centers, were most active in calling Congress and in obeying
its decrees.1 This great body of moderate business-men,
whose political principles were naturally tinged with com
mercialism, were opposed by the handful of explosive revo
lutionists, the Sons of Liberty, because they did not go far
enough, and by the king's agents and the Anglican clergy
men for having gone too far.

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

1 Not a voice in the city was raised against the recent acts of Congress. Sea-
bury, Free 7 houghts, 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.1 The liberal loyalists who had joined the
whigs in convening Congress were divided.2 One part joined
Golden, 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,3 which would secure
"the settlement of an American constitution" with colonial
self-government under a sovereign, imperial parliament.*
But this, the loyalists insisted, could not be done through
despotic committees,5 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.

* Many who worked hard to elect delegates were the foremost now in denouncing
the results. Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now? 18.

'Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 52-59.
4 Seabury, A View of the Controversy, etc., 21-23.

* 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.

3l] RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY -^

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 :

1 Cf. Am. Archs.t 4 ser., v, 845; cf. A'. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, iii, 417.

?2 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK \ ?2

' L

i . Royal officials — governors,1 lieutenant-governors,2 coun-
cillors,3 many assemblymen,4 judges,5 military and naval offi
cers,6 and other royal agents 7 on down to the petty district
squires.8 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.

* Cadwallader Golden and Andrew Elliot.

8 William Axtell, John Harris Cruger, Oliver De Lancey, James Jauncey. Jr.,
Roger Morris, William Smith, Hugh Wallace, John Watts and Henry \Vhite.

* James De Lancey, John De Lancey, John Cruger, James Jauncey, John Rapa-
Ije, Jacob Walton, Frederick Phillipse, Daniel Kissam, Simon Boerum, Peter Van
Cortlandt, John Coe, Zebulum \Villiams, Benjamin Seaman, Samuel Gale, Christo
pher Billopp, Samuel Wells, etc.

5 Thomas Jones, G. Banyar, Richard Floyd, Jonathan Fowler, Joseph Lord,
Noah Sabin, H. P. Valentine and Samuel Wells.

0 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. Golden,
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; Gary 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. \Vhite, Sheriff of Tryon county; William
Knox, Sec. ofN.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,2 physicians,8 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.

2 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.

5 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-

34 L 0 YALISM IN NE W YORK [34

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.*

1 Leading loyalists of this type were James Duane, Isaac Low, A. Van Dorm
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 Home, Lawrence Kartright and John Alsop.
Cf. N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., 2 ser., vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 381, etc.

1 Am. Archs., 5 ser., i, 40, ii, 967-970; cf. Rivingtorfs Royal Gazette, 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.

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 1 7 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 1 1 7 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.

36 LOYAL1SM 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,1
family ties,2 or social rank. Although the party was pre
dominantly Anglican in its faith/ still Methodists, Catholics,*
Presbyterians,5 Lutherans6 and Quakers7 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.

'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), no. Address
by William Kirby, Esq. Ibid., 1 1 1. 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, \o\. 18, p. 8l.

*Rev. John M. Kern was a German Lutheran minister. Ibid., vol. 19, p. 389.

T 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.

8 Can. Archs. (1896), 76; The United Empire Loyalists Centennial (1884),
in. Sir John Johnson's Royal Regiment of New York, consisting of 800, 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, I/74,'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.*
AtNewtown 56 loyalists signed a similar protest.4 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.7
Kings county, full of easy-going Dutch, who were passive
loyalists, repudiated the acts of Congress by silently ignoring

^nderdonk, Queens County, 16. 2 Ibid., 14. * Ibid., 17.

^Rivingtorfs Gazetteer, no. 92, Jan. 12, 1775; Ricker, Annals of Newtown,

175-178; Onderdonk, Queens County, 17-20.

5 Ibid., 20. 6 Ibid., 21 ; cf. Memoirs of the L. I. Hist. Soc., 268.

7 Flint, Early Lon% Island, 340; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 117; cf. Stiles,
Hist, of Kin%s Co.,\, 32.

37] 37

38 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [38

them.1 Most of Staten Island was loyalist, but no decisive
action was taken.-

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.3
The loyalists of Rye were outspoken and pugnacious/ 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.6 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 North field, 13;
Tyson, Lecture on the Hist, of Staten Island, 9; Holt's N. Y. Journal, no. 1676;
Am. Arch., 4th ser., i, 1249.

8 Cf. Dawson, Westchesler County, 36-40.

*Baird, History of Rye, 222.

^ Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 1230.

6 Ibid., 702-703. 7 Ibid., 1164. * Ibid., 1063.

'Campbell, Annals of 7*ryon County, 31-35; Benton, Hist, of Herkimer
County, 66-67.

3g-j ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 39

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."2 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. 8/&V.,390.

4 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." '

The last session of the general assembly began January
J3» 1775* 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. "J This they solemnly promised4 in a
"loyal and affectionate address."1 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.

*Ibid., 12; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 384.

*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. Col. Hist., viii, 532; N, Y.Hist.
Soc. Colls. (1877), 381, 383, 386, 389.

T Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 36-37.

*N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 40.

41] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 4I

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.5 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.7 The

1 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, part 8), 44-45; Docs> rel- to N- Y> c°l-
Hist., viii, 543.

1 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 59-64.

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 387.

*N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 109. * Ibid., 112.

* Ibid., 114-117. T ibid., no.

42 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [42

scheme to tax America without the assent of the assemblies
was branded as an " innovation." ' 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.3 They had
no desire for independence, and emphatically denied charges
to the contrary/ 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,5 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,6 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.8 In a mass meeting of both factions

1 N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776, 8th part), 114-115. 'L Ibid., ill.

3 Ibid., 109, 114. * Ibid., 115-117.

* Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 513.

6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 372» 373-

7 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., 1.480; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 4.

*Am. Arch, 4th ser., ii, 44-46,48, 49-50; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 395.

43] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 43

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.'2 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

1 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 481-483; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 49, 138.

2 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 484-486; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 138.

3 Cal. ofN. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 22-23.

* Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 282, 314-322, 323-324; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS.,
i, 20-21.

5 Ibid., 38-39, 40, 41; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 273-275; Min. of Prov. Conv.,
i, 2, 7.

6 Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., \, 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.

8 Cal. ofN. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 41-42.

*JV. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 389-390; N. Y. Assemb. Journ. (1766-1776,
8th 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."2 Colden was powerless/ and had
to admit that the province was in a " state of anarchy and
confusion."4 "A committee has assumed the whole power
of government," he complained,5 and retired to his farm on
Long Island.6 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 i, 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

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 448. 3 Ibid., 448-449.

* Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 40-41.

4 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 4°4- 5 /***•. 4°6- 8 Ibid-> 4*3-

* 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 cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 600;
Jones, Hist of N. Y., i, 488.

9 Ant. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 898, 933, 940, 409, 410.

45] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 45

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.2 It made arrests, impris
oned and denounced violators of the association,8 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,4 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.5 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.6

1 Am.Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1574.

* Ibid., 532. * Ibid. 1576, iii, 15, 21.

* Ibid., i, 914-927, v, 874-878; Jour, of Cont. Cong., 57, 68-77; Docs. rel. to
N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 69, 80, 176.

5 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.

6 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.3

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.7 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 7'hink Ye of Congress Now ? 30-37.

* Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 37.

:* N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 401.

*Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 328-329. 5 Ibid,, ii, 400, 470.

6 Ibid., 471; Afin. of Prov. Conv.,'\, 34-35, gives a copy of the association used
in New York.

7 Rivingtorfs N. Y. Gazetteer, no, 107, May 4, 1775; Holt's N. Y. Journal, no.
1687, May 4, 1775; Afin. of Prov. Conv., i, 82.

47] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 47

sign were to be returned to the Provincial Congress.1 No
" coercive steps" were to be used/ 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.5 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

1 Mm. of Prov. Conv., i, 97. * Ibid., 98.

3 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. MSS., and other
sources.

5 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 582.

6 Memorial of Htnry Van Schaack, 27; Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van
Schaack, 59; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 582.

1 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.4

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,
690-691, vi, 1433-1434.

*Ibid.,vi, 1419. * Ibid., 1420, 1421.

* Cf. " A Loyalist's Soliloquy." Moore, Diary of the Am. Rev., i, 169.

6 Cf. llfin. ofProv. Cong., i, 31, 32, 197; cf. Cal. of N. V. Hist. MSS., \, 23,

49 ] OR GANIZA TION OF THE LOYA US T PARTY 49

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.3 Queens county3 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.4 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, 1/75,
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.

1 Cf. Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 931, lii, 368; cf. Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i,
200-201; cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1388-1391, 1754, 1756, 1762,^,428.

a Ibid.,\\\, 1762, iv, 428, 1069-1070, Jan. 19, 1776.

3 Only 221 in the county voted for representatives, while 788 opposed them.
Ibid.,\\\, 1389-1391.

4 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 1630-1632. 5 Ibid., v, 255.

K Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 579-580, 650; Am. Archs., 4th ser.,ii, 966;
Min. of Prov. Cong.,\, 180.

^ Am, Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1052-1053; cf. Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 61-63,

559-560-

* Ibid., i, 62; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1053-1054,1311-1315; Docs.rel.toN~
Y. Col. Hist., viii, 638-644.

50 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [50

military rule.1 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. K, i, 560.

2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 307, 308-309.

3 Ibid., iii, 18-19, 5°. I35» 262-263, 974. iv, 193, 694, 830.
* Ibid., v, 328.

5 Min. ofProv. Cong., i, 112-113, 140-141, 3<>7-3l3* 325> 34C-J4*. 424, 347-348,
ii, lo-n.

6 Am. Archs., 4th set., iv, 470-473, v, 854, 931, 942,945, 947, 1055, 1078, 1169.
1 Ibid., 4th ser., ii, 1526-1528.

5 ! ] OR GANIZA TION OF THE L O YALIS T PAR TY 5 x

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 Tryori'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-

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1527, v, ion, 'l Ibid., v, 1168.

* 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 L O YALISM IN NE W 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.1

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.

:) Inglis, The 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.>'\,
479-

ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 53

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.2
" 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." 4
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.

* Jones, Hist. ofN. Y.t 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

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.y 5th ser.,i, 368, 1428-1429.

* 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.

3 Cf. Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 712-713, note Ixvii; 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 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [56

tection.1 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.4

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.

1 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.

4 " It then evidently appeared that nothing but the sword could decide the con
test." Cooper, A Sermon, etc., 17.

57] ORGANIZATION OF THE LOYALIST PARTY 57

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.y i, 153-154. l Ibid., ii, 110-112.

8 Min. of Prov. Cong., i, 234-240, 243-244; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 89, 913.

58 [58

59] WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS 59

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

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 240-242; cf. Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 203^
1 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.

6o LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [6O

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.

'l Ibid., 167; Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 16, 527, 573-574.

6l] WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS 6r

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
4< 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." x

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 LOYAL1SM IN NEW YORK [£2

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., Hi, 1891; Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 188, 190-191.

•/«</., 73-76.

• Ibid., 267-268; Ant. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1303.

4 Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 113-117, 124.

63] WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS £3

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.*
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.
1 Ibid., 1409-1410; Min.of Prov. Cong., v, 25, 410.
5 Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 274, 1409-1410.

* Ibid.y 1469, 1487; Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 410, 485, 612.
5 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.
Proceeding of the Alb. Co. Com., i, 451.

T Am. Archs., 4th ser.. v, 1504. Amendment to the Militia Act, May ; I, 1776.

64 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [64

friendliness to the liberties of America," or be subject to
trial " as a person inimical thereto." ' 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. Arcks., 4th ser., iv, 438. * Jbid., iii, 940, 1563.

3 Jbid., 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/- County and district committees received their instruc-

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1716. Act of Prov. Cong., June 1 8, 1776.

'l Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1706, June 14, 1776.

:| Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1084; Gaines* N. Y. Gazette, no. 1291.

* Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 725, 1327.

6 Ibid., iii, 451, 630, 907, 908, 910, 916, 1016, 1267, 1300, 1303; iv, 923, 1017,
mi, 1 120; v, 192, 193, 341, 342, 348, 390, 991; vi, 446, 1055, 1315, 1348, 1354,
1355. 1360. 1362, 1365, 1391: Min. of Prov. Cong.,\\\, 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.1 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 lories
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 toj be reported to the superior
body. Three were a quorum.4

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 A fin. of Prov. Cong., v, 707; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 676, 1358; Dawson,
Westchester Co., 172.

* Ibid., 174; Am. Arc'is., 4th ser., iii, 439, 446, 451, .880; iv, 187-188.
»/W</.,vi, 1324, 1327, 1328, 1331, 1342, 1365-137°; Cal. °f N- r- Hist- MSSn

i, 338; cf. Dawson, Westchcsttr Co., p. 165.

* Aft ft. of Prov. Cong., v, 632-636, 649; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1337.

* Min. of Prov Con?.,\t 737—747-

67] WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS fy

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 v/as 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. It the accused should decline to
give security for such appearance, they should be kept in

1 A/in, of Prov. Cong., v, 737-747, 835; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1400.

1 Ibid., vi, 1152-11 83. » Ibid.

68 LOYALISM IN XEW 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.1

On June 15 the committee of nine met in New York
city, and elected a president, secretary and assistant secre
tary, messenger and doorkeeper.2 A form of " summons "
to be issued to loyalists was adopted.3 This was served on
twenty royal officers of " equivocal character." 4 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., ajCn ser., vi, 1365-1370.

* Proceedings, etc., June 15, 1776; Am. Arc/is., 4th ser., vi, 1152, 1400, 1403;
Cal. of ^V. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 340.

' Proceedings, etc., June 15, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1153.
4 Proceedings, etc., June 19, 1776.

* Ibid., etc., June 19, 1776, and June 21, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1153.
•/#./., 4th ser., vi, 1158.

WAR AGAINST THE LOYAUSTS 69

sionally examined by a sub-committee,1 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.s 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.4 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,ooo.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.

1 Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 1 159. 8 Ibid., 1 160. *Ibid., 1 180-1 181.

* Proceedings, etc., June 24, 1776.

70 LOYALISM IX 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.1 The Ulster county jail was made
a provincial prison where loyalists were confined at their own
expense.2 Goshen township, Orange county, was chosen as
the place of detention for loyalists on parole.3 On June 28,
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, I776.7

1 Proceedings, etc., June 27, 1776; Am. Archs., 4th ser.,vi, 1181.

1 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. Hist. MSS., i, 340-341.

' Am. Arc/is., 4th sen, v, 1496-1497. * Ibid., vi, 1437, J442-

'Ibid., 1412, 1419, 1435; 5th ser- *t 139I- * Ibid., 1391-1392.

1 Proceedings, etc., July 12, 1776. This seems to be the last session of the com
mittee. The records end here. Am. Archs., 5th sen, i, 1415, 1417, show that 17
loyalists were reported to the Convention July 18, 1776, for treason, counterfeit-
ng, s applying 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.

7 i ]

W. AR A GAINS T THE L O YALISTS

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 told
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.4 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. ofProv. Cong., v, 899, June 25, 1776.

1 Am. Archs., 4th sen, iv, 582-583, 595,604, 605, 623, 624; v, 57, 74-75, vi, 790.

" Ibid., iv, 604; v, 342-343, 347-348. * Ibid., v, 1391-1393-

* Ibid., vi, 1432; cf. ibid., 1716. • Ibid., v, 341. T Ibid., vi, 430.

* Holfs IV. 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 army,
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 usee 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.2

The " excess of the spirit of liberty " was made a painful

1 Jour, of Prov. Cong., ii, 342. f Ibid., i, 590.

WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS 73

object lesson to the loyalists in the destruction of tory print
ing presses, types, manuscripts and books;1 the burning of
individuals in effigy,2 tarring and feathering^ rail-riding
through the streets and other personal outrages ;4 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 power and to
support its policy, and the slightest suspicion of this was
quite sufficient to cause arrest, and imprisonment or banish
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

1 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.

4 Numerous instances are recorded. Memoirs of L. I. Hist. Soc., iii, 92.

6 All over the colony, especially on Long Island, Staten Island, Westchester and
Tryon counties, such cases were reported.

6 Rivingtorts 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.

7 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. I776-

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 MifHin 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

1 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, Hist, 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. K
Hist. Soc. Colls., iv, 288.

3 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1397-1398.

WAR AGAINST THE LOYALISTS 75

good a cause to be dealt with by the constitutional represen
tatives of the colony." * 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.4 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., 1,491.

- Cooper, American Querist, etc., 24-25. Cf. " Speech of I — c W — s, Esq.,"
in N. V. Assembly. Rivingtorts Gazette, no. 103, April 6, 1776. Cf. Short Ad
vice to the Counties of New York, n. Cf. James Stewart, Total Refutation of
Dr. Price, 3-4. Cf. Hamilton, Works, i, 149.

8 Jour, of Prow. Cong., \, 232.

* Am. Archs.,4t\\ ser., iii, 1414-1417; cf. ibid., ii, 508-509.

76 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

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.1

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-

lAm.Archs., 4th ser., ii, 508-509: iii, 1552-1554, 1735-1738; vi, 787-788;
5th ser., iii, 1292. Cf. Gains' sN. 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."

1 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.1
"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."4 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.

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 479; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1883), 62; cf. ibid.,
(1882), 205.

a Am. Archs., ^th ser., iii, 3, 1745-1752.

s Jones, Hist, of X. K, i, 63, 64; Jour, of Prov. Cong., i, 377, 405, 406, 7505
Am, Archs., 4th ser., v, 187, 440, 514, 1389.

* Jones, Hist, of N. F.,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,"
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,3 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. MSS.,
1,334; MS. Revolutionary Papers, iv, 121, 195; Gainis 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 iffb around Neiv York and Brooklyn, published as vol. iiiof Memoirs of L.
I. Hist. Soc., speaks on page 60 of the "committee of Kings county;" cf. Am.
Archs., 4th ser., v, 219.

1 Campbell, Annals of Tryon Co., 31-33.

3 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 426.

* Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1064-1066.

5 Rivinglorfs N. Y. Gazetteer, no. 108, May II, 1775.

' Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 427, 459; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 489.

78 [78

70 ] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS 79

manner of appointment. In Albany county they were ap
pointed by the county committee ' and numbered at least
nineteen." New York had no sub-committees. In Queens
county they were organized by minorities.3 Town com
mittees were formed very early in Suffolk county.4 The same
was true of Tryon county.;> In Ulster county every precinct
had its local board, as was true also in Westchester county."

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 rules 7 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 1/76
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.

1 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., 21-22, 24.

« /«</., 32-33.

" Onderdonk, Queens County Incidents, 29-30 : Cat. of N. V. hist. AfSS., i, 304;
Am. Archs., 4, iii, 887, 889; Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 39, 41 ; iv, 50.

4 Am. Archs., 4th sen, ii, 1 1 7.

'Campbell, Annals of Tryon Co., 31-33.

•Dawson, Westchester Co., 113.

TIn Oct., 1775, 22 absent members were fined 20 shillings each by the Tryon
county committee. MS. Sir William Johnson Pa#ers,\x\i, no. no.

8 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1073, for Albany county; ibid., ii, 644, 1^,457-459,
696, 825, for Dutchess county; MS. Revolutionery Papers, iv, 189; Proceed
ings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 145, 146, 173, 183-187, 198, 364,365; Van Schaack,
Lift of Peter Van ^chaack, 57-63; cf. Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 246.

8o LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [go

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. Must 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. Arc/is., 4th scr., iv, 210, 211-212.

2 Ibid.,\\\, 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, Westchestcr
Co., 113.

* Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 272, 416.

* Am. Archs., 4th sen, ii, 12, 13, 35, 298, 448, 548, 1730-1731; Proceedings of
Alb. Co. Com., i, 361, 364, 372, 444, 449.

:>Am. Archs., ^th ser., vi, 1421-1422. fl Ibid., v, 250.

8i] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS g£

after the system became established, were dependent upon
the provincial bodies.1 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
from the state treasury.4 County committees could call out
the militia, and if the need was urgent, even use the regulars,
or ask a neighboring colony for aid.5 The Provincial Con
gress took great care to guard its own powers, as well as
those of the local committees, against rival civil and military
authorities.6 When the Westchester committee sent a " dan
gerous man " to the committee of safety for final action, that
body returned him saying that the " county committees are
altogether competent" for such cases.7

In making arrests8 there was no regular procedure by war
rants. Any body chosen by the people, from the Provincial
Congress to a precinct committee, was authorized to seize

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., 1473-1474; vi, 1442-1443.

"•Ibid., iii, 1248, iv, 186, vi, 1349, 1385-1386, 1415, 1416; Cal. of N. K
Hist.MSS., i, 88-89; Dawson, Westchester Co., 174, 175, 176, 177.

" Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 1484-1485; 5th ser., i, 1441, 1447, J472, 1473-

4 Ibid., 4th ser., v, 1458-1459.

5 Min. ofProv. Cong., iv, 46; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 402-403, vi, 1442-1443.
*Ibid., iv, 185-186, 401, 1033-1034, 1398, for Sears' raid; ibid., 1498; v, 283,

955, for Richmond county; ibid., v, 192-193, 341, 342, 348, 390, 991, for case of
Samuel Gale.

7 Ibid., iii, 916; cf. Min. ofProv. Cong., ii, 54-57, 103-104.

*Am. Arc/is., 4th ser., ii, 917, iii, 134-135, Ulster co.; ibid^ iii, 50, 87,96,
Tryon co.; ibid., iii, 331, 333, 457-459, 466, 569, 879, 900, 1761, iv, 187,
Dntchess co.; ibid., iii, 1263, iv, 393, New York co.; ibid., iii, 827; Min. of
Prov. Cong., iii, 37, Queens co.; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 826, 838, 902, 916,
1707; Min. ofProv. Cong., iii, 319, Westchester co., etc., etc.

82 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [g2

obnoxious loyalists and punish them "at the discretion of
the committee," according to the penalties prescribed in the
act of August 3, 1775. Under the intense hatred and
bigotry of the times, loyalists were not infrequently punished
on insufficient and questionable testimony,1 but on the whole,
strenuous efforts were made by all bodies to give the accused
fair trials.2 In fact few loyalists objected to the actual trial ;
it was the assertion of the right to try them which they
denounced.

In Albany county loyalists were permitted to demand
that their accusers should face them, and they were allowed
to produce witnesses to prove their innocence;3 but counsel
was denied them.4 While imprisoned, their families might
visit them.5 Prior to July 4, 1776, the same moderation
characterized the treatment of loyalists in all the counties.
In some cases, as has been shown, loyalists were treated in
an extremely arbitrary and even inhuman manner, but as a
rule, and taking the state as a whole, mobs, riots and the viola
tion of law were denounced by whigs nearly as much as by
loyalists.6 In practice, however, neither whigs nor loyalists
lived up to their professions. Loyalists arrested outside the
counties where they resided, were returned for trial,7 or sent

1 Cf. Am. Archs., 4th set., iv, 693; Min. of Com. of One Hundred, Jan. 16, 1776.

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 894, v, 192-193, 293, 342, 348, 390, 991; cf. ibid.,
iv, 115, 145, 245, 270 and 276 for treatment of loyalists in Virginia and Con
necticut; cf. Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 30, 133-134, 324.

•'• /bid., 390.

4 Ibid., 455. The Provincial Congress made this a provincial law in 1776.
Jour. ofProv. Cong. (1776), 7-9.

5 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., \, 432, 434.

6 Gaine's N. Y. Gazette, March 27, 1775; Essex Gazette, March 21, 1775; Holt's
N. Y. Journal, March 23, 1775; Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 52; Am. Archs.,
4th ser., li, 1064-1066; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., \, 459.

* Ibid., 417.

83] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS 83

to the Provincial Congress.1 After being arrested many were
liberated on bail to await trial.1

In the early stages of the struggle committees were often
forced to act as local legislatures. In Albany county the
committee resolved, May 18, 1/75, that all who refused to
give up arms for the American cause, or sold arms or sup
plies to " inimical persons," should " be held up to the public
as an enemy to their country." Those refusing public ser
vice were put in the same list later.* March 6, 1776, the
committee declared every " non-associator " to be an " enemy
to his country," 5 and a little later no person was allowed to
settle in the county without a certificate that he was a whig
and an associator.6 No person could leave the county
without the consent of the committee or of Congress.7 Any
person denying the committee's authority was liable to pun
ishment for the "crime."' Like measures were taken in
Dutchess county and a stringent oath was proposed for the
loyalists.9 It seems that the committee of the county of
New York took the same course.10 The Westchester county
board was active along similar lines and forced every suspect
to carry a certificate." In all the counties, except Kings,
Queens and Richmond, a like course was followed. Pains
were taken, usually, to have these measures square with the
recommendations of the supreme authority.

Loyalists were arrested for arming to support the British,
or aiding the enemy in any way ; for harboring or associating
with tories ; recruiting soldiers ; refusing to muster ; cor-

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 794.

1 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com.t i, 434.

* Ibid., i, 37.

*/&</., 383. • Ibid., 39, 403, 470. * Ibid., 413.

' Am. Archs., 4th. ser., iii, 457.

10 Ibid., v, 1491, 1497; vi, 725.

.,iii, 826; Dawson, Westchester Co., 149-151.

84 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [84

responding with loyalists, or with the British ; refusing to
sign the association, or violating its provisions ; denouncing
or refusing to obey congresses and committees ; writing or
speaking against the American cause ; rejecting continental
money ; refusing to give up arms ; drinking the king's
health; inciting or taking part in " tory plots" and riots;
being royal officers ; and even for endeavoring to remain
neutral. Mere suspicion was sufficient to cause seizure, and
this meant at least imprisonment. On this wide definition
of loyalism, hundreds were arrested, and soon all the jails
were overflowing. The jails of New York city were filled
very early. By December, 1775, the Albany committee
had to provide additional quarters and an extra jailor.1 By
June, 1776, so numerous were the prisoners there, that the
watch had to be doubled.' Standing guards were ordered
to be kept in Dutchess and Westchester counties.' Albany
and New York city became the great centers where loyalists
were brought together for final disposition.

There was no uniform treatment of loyalists. Some were
imprisoned,4 others were sent to the Provincial Congress or
committee of safety for punishment,5 large numbers were
simply disarmed,6 many were released on parole or bond,7 a

1 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 360, 364, 426. * Ibid., 433.

* Am. Arch., 4th ser., vi, 1415, 1416, 1418.

4 Ibid., iii, 907, 910, 1016, 1267, 1300, 1303, 1314, 1761, iv, 1030, 1071, Iii8,
v> 548> 558, 1428; MS. Revolutionary Papers, vi, 195, 203, 207; Dawson,
Westchester Co., 120, 146; Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 331-333, iv, 48, v, 7-9;
Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 255, 290, 371, 407, 428, 429,433, etc.

*Jbid., i, 361, 364, 372, 444, 449: Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 131, 137, 153, iv,
56-57; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 838, iv, 1068, v, 273, 343, 821, vi, 44.0, 1055,
1383; 5th ser., i, 1467.

* Ibid., 4th ser., v, 1491, 1497; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i., 68; Proceedings of
Alb. Co. Com., i, 365, 369, 394, 396, 416, 418, 421, 459.

7 Ibid., 369, 371, 384, 401,406,416, 421, 429, 430, 433, 435, 439, 441, 443, 449,
460, 467; Min. of Prov. Cong., ii, 54-57, 103-104; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 1118,
1181, 1663, v, 253, 265, 269, 273, 274.

85] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS 85

few were reprimanded and let go,1 others were handed over
to the Continental Congress at Philadelphia,2 numbers were
exiled to and imprisoned in Connecticut,3 Massachusetts,4
New Jersey5 and New Hampshire;6 many were forced to re
cant or to sign the association, or to take a harsh oath,7 others
were removed to some adjoining county,8 nearly all were
forced to carry certificates, for which they paid a fixed sum ;'
hundreds were published in the newspapers as public ene
mies and "delinquents,"10 several were ostracized," some
were compelled to give hostages,12 still others were put to
hard labor, T3 and "a few were murdered."14 When impris
oned or banished, loyalists had to pay their own expenses.
If they were too poor for this, then the province paid the
costs.1?

Neither the Continental nor the Provincial Congress hesi-

lAm. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 905, 906; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 367, 373,
382, 431.

* Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 923.

I Conn, your., Nov. 29, 1775, no. 424; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 67, 109-110;
Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 192, vi, 710, 1072; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 328-
333; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 456.

4 Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 52.

6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 1498.

6 N. H. State Papers, viii, 379, 389, 393.

"* Am. Arc/is., 4th ser., iv, 156, 858-860; 5th ser., ii, 325; Min. of Prov. Cong.,
iii, 329; MS. Revolutionary Papers, vi, 109, 195, 203, 207; Campbell, Annals oj
Tryon Co., 34-36, 42.

8 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 647; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 290, 454.

9 Gainers N. Y. Gazette, no. 1272, Feb. 26, 1776; Jour, of Cont. Cong. (1776)
7-9; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 826, v, 405.

10 Ibid., iv, 372-375, v, 518; Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 123.

II Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist, viii, 568, 581.
12 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 643.

"Ibid., v, 1231.

14 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 109-110.

15 Am. Archs., 4th sen, iv, 427; MS. Revolutionary Papers, vi, 159.

86 LOYAL2SM IN NEW YORK [86

tated to interfere in any county where there was no commit
tee, or where the committee was too weak to cope with a
powerful combination of loyalists.1 Revolutionary civil au
thority was always backed up by military force. Such inter
vention was necessary in Tryon, Dutchess, Westchester,
Kings, Queens and Richmond counties. In the first three
counties the committees and local militia were unable to
deal with the " inimical " effectually, while in the last three
these bodies had practically disbanded by the fall of 1775.
Loyalism in Tryon county had a unique history. The
powerful Johnson family swayed the Mohawk valley. Their
retainers, about 1,000 in number and mostly Scotch High
landers, were nearly all loyalists. In addition, many others
throughout the county who were indebted to the Johnsons
for favors, chose the royal side.2 Sir John Johnson was the
leader, ably assisted by Guy Johnson, Colonel Claus and
John Butler.3 Sir John Johnson and Guy Johnson soon had
tilts with the county committee.4 The Continental Congress
resolved, December 30, 17/5, to send General Schuyler to
secure the arms and stores of the tories in this county, and
"to apprehend their chiefs."5 With 3,000 men, including
900 Tryon county militia, General Schuyler started for
Johnstown.6 Sir John agreed to surrender all his arms and
military stores ; to allow his Scotch retainers to give up their
arms, swear neutrality and furnish hostages ; and to try to

1 Am. Archs., 4th sen, iii, 569, 579, 630, iv, 393, v, 45,466. The Continen
tal Congress ordered the Skeenes of Cumberland county arrested and sent to
Connecticut on parole. Ibid., ii, 1864, iv, 248.

J Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 828-830; cf. Campbell, Annals of Tryon Co., 37.

8 Ibid., 75.

* Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 638, 661, 662, 671, 879, 911, iii, 1194, 1245, 1964, iv,
397, 667.

• Ibid., iii, 1964; Jour, of Cont. Cong., 310.
•Jones, Hist, oj N. Y., i, 71, 579.

8 7] CO UNTY 1NQ UIS1 1 'ORIAL OR GANIZA TIONS g /

induce all the loyalists in the county to do the same. Sir
John was then released on parole.1

Hearing later that he was inciting an Indian massacre,2
General Schuyler summoned him before the Albany com
mittee.3 The rumor proved to be false, so he was released.4
But shortly after, the reports against Sir John increasing,
Schuyler decided to seize him. Hence Colonel Dayton was
sent with a letter to the accused, freeing him from his parole,
and with orders to take him a close prisoner before General
Washington.5 Suspecting this piece of treachery, the titled
loyalist and his Highlanders fled to Canada.6 In retaliation
Johnson Hall was sacked and Lady Johnson taken as a hos
tage to Albany,7 then sent to Fishkill, from which place,
being refused a pass,8 she escaped to the British.? Guy
Johnson, John and Walter Butler and Joseph Brant, with a
crowd of loyalists, had preceded Sir John in their flight to
Canada.10 For some time Schuyler kept his eye on the re
maining tories, and stationed Colonel Dayton on the Mohawk
" until further orders." "

Orange county was so seriously disaffected and the
county committee so inactive, that the Provincial Congress
authorized Colonel Hay to arrest the worst tories and send
them to New York city,12 using the militia, if necessary, for

I Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 827.

* Ibid., v, 195, 772. * Ibid., 195, 196.

4 Ibid., 196; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 584.
6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 643.

6 Ibid., 644, 511, 538; cf. Sir John Johnson's Orderly Book, i, 3 note.

7 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 643, 647, 913; Jones, Hist, of N. K, i, 76-77, 646.

8 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 913, 930, 992; Jour, of Prov. Cong., ii, 251, 256, 761.

9 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., xi, 77-81.
10Frothingham, Montgomery County, 78.

II Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 493, 645, 647.

1J Ibid., 1442; Gainers N. Y. Gazette, no. 1276, Aug. 12, 1776.

88 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

the purpose. Dutchess county was fairly overrun with loy
alists. The committee was forced to ask the Provincial Con
gress to arrest the ringleaders.1 The militia was repeatedly
called out, and finally the chairman of the county board
begged the Provincial Congress to keep 150 paid troops con
stantly on guard to suppress the internal foes. This request
was granted.2

In Westchester county the loyalists formed a majority of
the population, and were so active and formidable that they
intimidated the local authorities. 3 An appeal was therefore
made to Connecticut to help disarm the tories. The Pro
vincial Congress also decided to raise an armed police force
of fifty men to keep the peace in the county.4 The raid of
Isaac Sears through this county, in November of 17/5, was
conducted in a lawless way. The leading loyalists of East
and West Chester were disarmed, and " Parson Seabury,
Judge Fowler and Lord Underbill" were carried off to New
Haven.5 This deed was denounced by both whigs and
loyalists, and was repudiated by the Provincial Congress.6
General Charles Lee also made a raid on the loyalist farmers
of this region and carried away everything resembling arms.
This was done without the sanction of the committee or of
the Provincial Congress.7 Frightened by a " plot . . .
to carry off several of the members " and being " at present

1 Am. Archs., 4th sen, iii, 466.
* Ibid., vi, 1415, 1416, 1418, 1425.

'Dawson, Westchester Co., 83, note 4, 154-157, 163; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii,
I763» iv» 590.

4 Jour, of Prov. Cong., June 20, 1776; Dawson, Westchester Co., 173, 174.

5 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 65, 562-566; Docs. rtl. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 581;
Am.Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1707; Conn. Jour., Nov. 29, 1775, no. 424; Dawson,

Westchester Co., 128.

6 Ibid., 132; Holfs N. Y. Journalist. 7, 1775, no. 1718.

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 272, 273, 274, 304; Jour, of Prov. Cong., Feb. 13,
1776; Dawson, Westchester Co., 123.

89] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS 89

too weak " to suppress it, the county committee asked for
an armed guard.1

Queens county was the stronghold of loyalism in New
York.2 Its inhabitants were a standing menace to the
American cause and an encouragement to the British.
They caused the Continental Congress, the Provincial Con
gress and General Washington more anxiety and trouble than
the loyalists of any other county. The county committee
there did little more than to organized Therefore all serious
cases were brought before the Provincial Congress/ The
Huntington committee called on that body for aid to quell
a tory uprising.5 Because twenty-six obnoxious loyalists
refused to appear before the Provincial Congress when sum
moned, December 12, 1775, the whole county was " entirely
put out of the protection of this Congress " and all inter
course "interdicted."6 A list of 734 "delinquents" was
printed in hand bills and published in the newspapers.7 The
Continental Congress approved of these measures and sug
gested making them more severe.8

So dangerous did the loyalists soon become, however,
that the supreme body ordered Connecticut troops from
the east and New Jersey troops from the west to enter
the county simultaneously, to disarm all who voted
against sending deputies to the Provincial Congress, and to
arrest and confine obstinate loyalists.9 The twenty-six

1 Jour. ofProv. Cong., iii, 317-321, 327, 329.

9 Am. Archs., 4th sen, vi, 725, 1264. s Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 334.

* Min. of Prov. Cong., iii, 37, 39, 41; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 887, 889; iv,
1181, 1201.

5 Ibid., 404; Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 50.

« Ibid., 123.

1 Ibid.; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 372-375, 435.

8 Jour, of Cont. Cong. (1776), 7-9.

9 Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., i, 68; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 860-861.

go LOYAUSM IN NEW YORK [90

loyalist leaders who refused the summons of the Provincial
Congress, were also ordered to be seized.1 In the end only
Colonel Nathaniel Heard with about 900 New Jersey militia
entered the county.2 In four weeks the whole county was
disarmed. Governor Tryon reported that six hundred had
been treated thus in ten days.3 Four hundred and sixty-
two loyalists were forced to sign an agreement to obey the
revolutionary authorities in all instances 4 and nineteen of
the leaders were carried to Philadelphia, confined several
weeks, returned to New York, held a few weeks longer and
then released on parole.5 Loyalists in some cases were
maltreated and robbed,6 but Colonel Heard " treated the
inhabitants with civility and the utmost humanity." 7 Some
of the chief tories fled.8

Meanwhile, General Charles Lee, fresh from " tory hunt
ing " in Rhode Island, proposed his "scheme" to Wash
ington to suppress the loyalists on Long Island.9 This was :
to disarm all of them, then to force them to deposit one-half
the value of their estates with the Continental Congress as a
pledge of good behavior. Those refusing to take the
" strongest oath ... to act defensively and offensively in
support of the common cause" — the "desperate fanatics"
— were to be sent under guard into the interior.10 Washing
ton ordered him to proceed and notified the New York com-

lAm. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 764, 772. ' Ibid., 1639, Jan. 10, 1776.

*Ibid., 923; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 663.

'Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 858-860; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 215-218.

*Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 1118-1119, 1181, 1663, v, 253, 265, 269, 273; tf.
Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 68-69; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 240, 262.

6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 923. Jones overcolors the facts.

J Ibid., 857, 858, 923. 8 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 108-109.

» N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, i, 235.

10 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 806-807, 1095; Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 612; N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, i, 249.

9i] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS gi

mittee of safety.1 Lee raised 1,200 Connecticut volunteers
and started for New York, but the Continental Congress
ordered him to stop on the border, while a committee was
sent to investigate the situation.2

The committee reported, March 14, 17/6, that the de
fense of southern New York was "totally fruitless" unless
the " professed enemies of American liberty " in Queens and
Richmond counties were rendered harmless. The bonds re
quired were "too ridiculous to be mentioned," and the asso
ciation forced upon them was null. Hence the committee
advised that, in addition to disarming them, their children
should be taken as hostages.3 But without waiting for fur
ther instructions from the civic authorities, Washington, dis
appointed at the interference, ordered Lee to arrest all loyal
ists "notoriously known."4 Lee at once sent Colonel Wood
to Long Island " to secure the whole body of professed
tories."5 With him went Isaac Sears, empowered either to
force certain notorious loyalists to take a severe oath or to
carry them to Connecticut.6 These instructions were carried
out with such severity as " to convert whigs to tories," 7 and
to cause the Provincial Congress to demand an explanation.8

Though disarmed, paroled and banished, the loyalists in
this county were not suppressed, but, as months passed and
British forces were expected, they were reported to be

N. V. Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, i, 236; Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 371 ; Am.
Archs., 4th ser., iv, 1095.

1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, i, 235 ; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 943.

* Ibid., v, 213-215.

* Ibid., iv, 895-896.

5 Min. of Prov. Cong,, v, 3-5.

6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., Lee Papers, i, 296.

1 Ibid., 359; Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., i, 573; Am. Archs., 4th ser.,v, 105, 371-372;
Min. of Prov. Cong., v, 59, 60.

8 Ibid., 66; Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 372.

92 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [93

" growing worse and worse." ' The Provincial Congress, in
June, 1776, urged Washington to disarm and secure them at
once.3 Even the Queens county committee was revived, and
resolved that five hundred soldiers be billeted on the loyal
ists and that all the dangerous ones be sent to the provincial
authorities.3 Consequently Washington sent Colonel Cor
nell to Queens county with 1,000 men.* The loyalists, dis
armed by Heard the winter before, " all fled." 5 A general
hunt followed, some were wounded, " a few were murdered,"
and those who were captured were sent to New York under
guard, and then, without trial, sent to " different parts of
New England." 6 The arrival of the Howes saved the
county from further punishment.

Richmond county ranked next to Queens in the prevalence
of loyalism. Because it refused to send deputies to the Pro
vincial Congress, that body declared the county guilty of
" open contempt," consequently published the " delinquents"
in the newspapers and " totally interdicted " the island.7
The election of two representatives from the county on Janu
ary 19, 1776, delayed the execution of the interdict.8 A
month later the defiance and insolence of the loyalists forced
the Provincial Congress to ask New Jersey to quell them.
Colonel Heard with seven hundred men arrested the most
dangerous and carried them to New Jersey.9 The county
committee, composed of loyalist sympathizers, wholly in
active up to this time, sent three of their number to New
Jersey to demand the release of the captured loyalists, and

lAm. Archs., 4th ser., v, 450, 1451, 1490, 1491, 1501, vi, 569-574, 1031, 1055,
1320-1321, 1343, 1344, 1347.

*/#</., vi, 533-534, 1427- * IK*-* i°55» 1383. '394; 5th ser-» '» *46&

* Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 108-109. 5 Ibid. * Ibid., i, 109-1 10.
T Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 435, 1034, v, 283; Min. of Prov. Con?., \, 123.

* Ibid., iv, 224, 225, 226, 308, 309, 464.

' Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 655, 1163, 1498, v, 283.

93] COUNTY INQUISITORIAL ORGANIZATIONS 93

appealed to the Provincial Congress.1 That body requested
the New Jersey authorities to return them for trial by the
local committee, and also asked that the latter body should
report on the cases.'' After a brief examination some of
these accused persons were released on the ground of in
sufficient evidence.3 In fact so manifestly lenient was the
local board in dealing with such domestic foes that a council
of war condemned their course as " improper and inef
fectual." * General Lee's plans for Staten Island were never
carried into execution.5 As in the case of Long Island, the
arrival of the British saved Staten Island from further whig
invasion.

It appears that the county committees, organized in every
county except Kings, were far from being uniform in origin,
numbers, method of procedure or activity. Their power
originated in the right of revolution and in the recommenda
tions of the revolutionary bodies above them. These com
mittees could determine which were the enemies and which
the friends of American liberty, and could banish the former.
This power was successfully exercised by the county com
mittee, without the intervention of the superior body, in the
counties of Albany, New York, Cumberland, Suffolk and
Ulster. Albany had most and Cumberland and Suffolk least
to do. In Tryon, Dutchess and Westchester counties the
committees were very busy and well organized, but so pow
erful were the loyalists that aid was solicited from either the
Continental or Provincial Congress. In Orange, Queens and
Richmond counties the committees were so feeble and the
" inimical" so strong that it was necessary for the superior
bodies to assume direct control. To the loyalist all these

1 Am. Archs., 4th series, iv, 1498; v, 28^.

1 Ibid., v, 293, 309. * Ibid., 102-103.

* Ibid., vi, 1436; MS. Revolutionary Tapers, iv, 109, in, 189.

* Am. Archs.y 4th ser., v, 133.

94 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

bodies were illegal, and their treatment of him and his fel
lows the grossest tyranny. For him the only hope of relief
now left was in the success of the British arms. For this he
and his associates now hoped, prayed, suffered and worked,
nor did they doubt that success would crown their efforts in
the end.

CHAPTER V

ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

EARLY in July, 1776, the British landed on Staten Island
and took possession of the " cattle and the tories."1 This
was the beginning of a period of military occupation which
ended only with the treaty of peace. Tryon and many " fast
friends of government" welcomed the British and reported
that " a numerous body " of loyalists was ready to join the
army to prove " their loyalty and zeal."2 The success of
British arms was now their only hope, hence they were re
solved to aid in bringing it about in every possible way .3

The loyalists of Staten Island welcomed General Howe as
a deliverer, and placed all their supplies at his disposal.4
About four hundred militiamen volunarily took the oath of
allegiance.5 Two ships which were sent up the Hudson,
secured supplies, and with them twenty loyalists, at Haver-
straw.6 General Howe soon crossed to Long Island. The
loyalists there were anxious for his arrival and confident in
the expectation of his triumph.7 The battle of Long Island

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 20; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. t/ist., viii, 681.

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 105. * Ibid.t 1546.

* fbid., 23, 122, iii, 855; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 681.

* Ibid.; Clute, Hist, of Staten Islant, 80 ; Bayles, Hist, oj Richmond Co., 250;
Am. Arc/is., 5th ser., i, 122.

0 Ibid., 452.

1 /#</., ii, 1183-1134, U9v, 1 212, 1213, 1233, 1245, 1247, 1251, 1256, 1259;
Memoirs of L. /. His!. Soc. , iii, appendix, 134.

95] 95

96 LOYALISM IN NEW \OKK [96

and the occupation of New York city emboldened the loyal
ists, and led them to believe that there could be but one end
to the conflict. The "disaffected" now flocked by hun
dreds to the British standards.1

Once in possession of southern New York, embracing
60,000 people, General Howe, by a series of proclamations,
restored English rule and the allegiance of the inhabitants.3
The courts on Long Island were opened and several whig
estates confiscated/' Even force was in some instances used
to make people take the oath of allegiance.4 The loyalists
at once embraced the opportunity to be reinstated as royal
subjects.5 Upon Governor Tryon's return to the capital
they wrote him a congratulatory letter professing " the sin-
cerest joy at this happy event," because it was a token of " the
blessings of peace and security under his Majesty's auspi
cious government."6 To Lord and General Howe they
reasserted their unshaken loyalty to the king and their
belief that the " constitutional supremacy of Great Britain
over these colonies" was "essential to the union, security and
welfare of the whole empire." Though many loyalists had
been driven or carried away from the city, still 948 persons
signed this address.7 In a mass meeting of loyalists this
address had been drawn up amid " loud acclamations and

x Am. Arc/is., 5th ser., i, 1233, 1506, 1546, ii, 66i; ef. Memoirs of L. /. Hist.
Soc., iii, appendix, 96.

2 Jones, Hist, of N. K, ii, 116; Gainers N. Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury,
nos. 1301-1310; Almon's Remembrancer, iii, 86; Doc. Hist, oj N. K, i, 474,
gives the population as 53,000 in 1771: Am. Archs, $\h series, ii, 282, 1074, 1075,
iii, 855.

3 Jones, Hist, oj /V. Y., ii, 117; Am.Archs., 5th ser., ii, 325.
'Ibid., 281, 1200.

5 Ibid., 295, 281, 669, 1159, 1164, 1219-1221, i, 1548, 1564.

6 Gaine's Ar. Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury, no. 1304; Almon's Remem
brancer, iv, 122-123; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 1075, October 16, 1776.

' fbid., 1074-1075.

97] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS 97

shouts of applause." " Joy was lighted up in every coun
tenance on the prospect of returning peace and union with
the parent state." '

Expecting a speedy peace, reaction set in all over south
ern New York. In Queens county 1,293 "freeholders and
inhabitants" sent addresses to the British civil and military
leaders in which they confessed, but lamented having fallen
from " freedom to oppression " through " hopes blasted by
the infatuated conduct of the Congress." 2 Now, however,
they professed allegiance to George III and hoped that " con
stitutional authority" over the colonies would "be preserved
to the latest ages." 3 " A very large majority . . . stead
fastly maintained their royal principles," and asked that the
county be declared at peace with the crown.4 In Kings
county 475 loyalists addressed the king's commissioners,
signifying their wish for a return to the British rule.5 Even in
Suffolk county, Smithtown, Brook Haven, Huntington,
Southampton, Islip, Easthampton and Southold dismissed
their committees, repudiated all acts of congresses and com
mittees and professed loyalty to " the lawful sovereign."
This restored them to their old footing.6

From the region along the Hudson loyalist officials and

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 1158-1163.

2 This was October 21, 1776. Almoti's Remembrancer, iv, 198-199, 292, give*
10,184 as ^e number of signers, but this is evidently a mistake, because a colonial
paper, Gainers N. Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury, no. 1309, gives the number
1,184; </• Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1212, ii, 1042.

3 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 1159-1164.

* Docs, r el. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 692. They sent a similar adiress to Gov
ernor James Robertson on August 5, 1780; Rivington's Royal Gazette, August
12, 1780; cf. Arnold's Address to Americans, Oct. 20, 1780, in Ibid., Oct. 28, 1780.

5 Gainers N. Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury, no. 1311, Dec. 9, 1776; Docs,
rel. to N. Y. Col. IJist., viii, 692; cf. Address to Gov. James Robertson, July 12,
1 780, given in Rivingtorfs Royal Gazette of same date.

* Ibid.; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 252, 505, 1042, 1212, 1219-1221; Almon't
Remembrancer, iv, 124-125.

98 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [98

others were constantly fleeing to the British.1 The militia
men were disbanded and allowed to keep their arms.2 In
Queens county four-fifths of the 1,500 militia were loyal.3
Governor Tryon took a tour over Long Island, gave out cer
tificates to loyalists,4 tendered the oath of allegiance to the
820 militia at Hempstead, in Queens county, and to 800 in
Suffolk county. Other small districts took the same course.5
Westchester, Dutchess and other counties were waiting for
the British army, in order to do likewise.6 The loyalists as
serted that, were it not for the rebel army, the whole colony
would come out boldly for a return of the " king's peace and
government." General Howe believed that by appealing to
the " well-affected" American subjects and by promising a
revision of all acts causing grievances, a permanent peace
might be made.7

The crown officers, from Governor Tryon down to the
petty justices of the peace, were champions of loyalism, and,
for the most part, were true to their official oaths.8 The
Episcopalian clergymen were true to the king's cause almost
to a man. They made the loyalist cause a holy one.g
Early in 1776 they had been forced to close their churches,10
but now these were reopened and their communicants were
instructed in the ways of loyalty.

1 Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 290.
1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1564.

• Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 108.

• Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 693. * Ibid., 6)3-6)4.

• Ibid., 692; cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 330-452.
1 1bid., ii, 398, 1074.

•Jones, Hist, of yV. Y., ii, 51, 417-421; Clute, His.', of Staten Island, 80, 90;
cf. Flint, Hist, of L. /., 340.

• Game's N. Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury, no. 1323; cf. Address of Kpis
copalian clergy to the Howes, Mar:h 3. 1/77.

** Ahnjn's Remembrancer, ir, 119.

99] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS 99

The process of undoing what rebellion and revolution had
accomplished continued after 1776. The governor was kept
busy administering the oath of allegiance and granting cer
tificates which would " distinguish the friend from the en
emy." The results met with his " warmest wishes." The
royal officers helped him. Early in 1777 he reported that
over 3,020 had qualified in the city and county of New York,
while about 2,600 had done the same in Westchester county
and on Long Island and Staten Island. This made a total of
5,620 adult male loyalists in the territory covered by the
king's troops. In the capital not more than a hundred re
fused to avail " themselves of the opportunity of thus testify
ing their attachment to Government." 2 This work was con
tinued, and additional thousands were added to the number.3

The next move was made by the New York city loyalists,
in issuing a counter-declaration of independence, declaring
null all the powers of the Continental Congress and of all
provincial committees, conventions and congresses. It was
generally signed.4 No longer could the representatives of
New York claim to have the unanimous consent of the peo
ple. The names of the " addressers," of those who took the
oath of allegiance and of those who signed this paper, were
sent to the British government.5 These expressions of loy
alty were so gratifying to the king that he authorized Gov
ernor Tryon to promise grants of land to all loyalists who
should help to suppress the insurrection.6 The executive
hoped these acts would arouse intense opposition to the
arbitrary and illegal bodies of New York and bring peace.7
The New York chamber of commerce was very zealous in co-

1 Docs. rel. to A7. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 696.

1 Ibid., 697. » Ibid., 734, 750, 753, 754.

4 Ibid., 698-699. » ibid., 705.

• Ibid., 704-705; cf. ibid., 695; cf. Am. Archs., $th ser., iii, 855.

T Docs. rel. to N, Y. Col. Hist., viii, 706.

I OO £ O YAL1SM IN NE W YORK

operating with the British army and navy from 1776 to 1783.
General Howe relied upon it to rule the city. In its votes
of thanks to British officers it always spoke of the Americans
as " rebels " and the war as an " unnatural rebellion." l

Early in the struggle England began the policy of arming
the loyalists against their rebel brethren.1 In New York the
plan met with quick response. "Freeing themselves" with
the aid of the royal troops, it was called.3 As inducements
to enlist, the more active were given good commissions and
others were promised a bounty, the full pay of regulars, 200
acres of land and the estates of the revolutionists after the
war was over.* Governor Tryon recognized the necessity
"of raising regiments out of, and giving employment and
protection to, the well-affected part of his majesty's Ameri
can subjects." 5 Therefore he encouraged the loyalists in
arming, and was the source of many a " tory plot." He be
lieved the whole province would take up arms, if only the
rebel army were driven out.6 To this end he now bent all his
energies. The British authorities relied on these assertions
made by Tryon and the influential loyalists. It was early
planned, therefore, to " give spirit and vigor to the friends of
government, and incite them to take an active and resolute
part" in recovering New York.7 Chiefly for that reason,
General Howe was sent to New York.8

Before the arrival of the British at New York the loyalists

1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., 2d sen, ii, part 2, 381-400.

2 Cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 122-123, 41*1 ser-> "» I755~I776» »i» 6> I2^°» I28l»
1282; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist.,\\\\, 679, 680.

1 Ibid., 679.

4 Am. Archs., 4th sen, v, 1473-1474, vi, 1032, 5th sen, i, 1237; Docs. rt/. to N.
Y. Col. Hist., viii, 680.

5 Ibid., 650. 6 Ibid., 692.

7 Am. Archs., 4th sen, ii, 1755, 1776, iii, 1280, 1281, 1282, iv, 699.

8 Ibid., 5th sen, i. 122-123.

I0l] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS IOI

had been arming and enlisting for a year. In the spring of
1775 Lieutenant-Colonel Allan Maclean, aided by Guy John
son, raised a regiment of " Royal Highland Emigrants,"
composed chiefly of Scotch refugees and old soldiers, and
took them to Canada.1 About the same time one Grant
was seized in Dutchess county recruiting for General Gage
at Boston. He was released on parole, but fled with some
recruits to the British.2 Captain Duncan Campbell, sent to
New York for the same purpose, was more fortunate, and
took with him to General Gage enough loyalist volunteers,
mostly from Dutchess county, to help form the regiment of
"Royal Fencible Americans."' In June, 1775, the Mac-
Donalds were enlisting loyalist troops in Albany, Dutchess
and Richmond counties,4 and by August the loyalists, of
their own accord, armed themselves against the revolution
ary committee in the first-named county.5

Orange county loyalists armed and awaited the arrival of
the British. The Provincial Congress was informed in Octo
ber of a " conspiracy from Haverstraw to Hackensack to join
the king's troops."6 The militia at Haverstraw were so dis
affected that they refused to allow drafts for the defense of
New York city.7 Desertions to the English were numerous.8

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Co!. Hist., viii, 562-563; Brown, Highland Clans, iv, 242,
307,308; Smith, Canada, ii, 83; cf. Ryerson, Loyalists of Am., ii, 262, Ma
clean's letter is given. Gorneau, Canada, ii, 436; American Annals, \, 24, 626.

1 Min. ofProv. Cong., iii, 294, 331-333, iv, 48; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 457-
459, 1314-1315, 1719-1720, 1761, 1900, iv, 187-188, 1117.

* Ibid., iii, 1311-1314, 1315; cf. Docs. rel. to Ar. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 680. Samuel
Woods enlisted about 100 loyalists for Capts. Campbell and Harris. MS.
Transcripts of.... Books and Papers .... of the American Loyalists, vol. 18, p. 481.

* Min. ofProv. Cong., i, 234-244.

5 Ibid., iii, 274, 294, 331-333, iv, 49; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 457-459, 696,
823, v, 866.

* Ibid.,\\\, 1305, vi, 1032; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS.,'\,^y, Min. of Prov.
Cong., iii, 274.

T Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1442. * Ibid., iii, 841, 907, 908, 913, v, 1369.

102 1-0 YALISM IN NE W YORK [ l Q2

Attempts to raise loyalist troops in Albany county were frus
trated,1 as elsewhere, only by the vigilance of the revolution
ary committee. The Provincial Congress announced, in De
cember, 1775, triat Queens county loyalists received arms
from the British warship and were even enlisting their ne
groes.2 By May, 1776, they had formed companies, and
Robert Sutton had 700 men equipped to join the English.3

Early in 1776 the loyalists about Albany were armed and
awaiting the approach of the British from both north and
south.4 Small parties were constantly leaving to fight for
the king.5 In April, J. Huetson was reported to be raising a
regiment of "royal volunteers," and another rumor said that
400 loyalists were en route for Canada.6 When the county
committee asked Robert Van Rensselaer to quell a tory in
surrection at Ballstown, his regiment was so disaffected that
he was forced to refuse.7 In May, 1776, Sir John Johnson,
as has been stated, fled to Canada with 300 Mohawk Valley
loyalists, and was given a colonel's commission to raise two
loyalist battalions of 500 men each, called the " Royal
Greens." This number was soon raised from Tryon, Char
lotte and Albany county fugitives.8 The Mohawk Indians
to a man followed him, and other Indian nations were under
his influence.9 A party of loyalists left Canajoharie to join

1 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 395, 443,459, 587.

'l Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 47, 50-53; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 403,404-406,
5th ser., i, 486.

5 Ibid., v, 1473, 1474, vi, 1321, 1324, 1327, 1328, 5th ser., i, 622; Docs.rel.to
N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 680.

4 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 574-575, 585. 6 Ibid., 586.

6 your, of Prov. Cong., i, 886. 7 Ibid., i, 888.

* Ibid., ii, 493; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 1964, iv, 667, 668, 828, 829, vi, 644,
5th ser., i, 866, iii, 587; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 651, 663, 664, 683;
Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 75.

9 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Co!. Hist., viii, 663; Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 260, 5th ser.,
i, 866-867, ii, 1 1 20-i 221.

ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS IO3

the British, and "multitudes of tories " went from Fort
Dayton.1 Sir John was ably assisted by John and Walter
Butler, Caldwell, Glaus and Brant, and henceforth became
the most bitter and inveterate foe of his former country
men.2

All sorts of horrible "tory plots" were unearthed or in
vented in every county. In Orange county there was a plan
to join the " ministerial army." 3 From King's district, Queens
county, came the report that the tories had plotted to mur
der all the whigs.4 General Washington heard of another
plot to unite all the loyalists of Connecticut and Long Island
for the purpose of seizing or massacring the revolutionists
and joining the enemy.5 Similar rumors came from New
York city and the counties of Albany, Westchester and Tryon.
The loyalists had established a general system of communica
tion throughout the country.6 Their post from New York
to Canada was as active as the regular whig post.7 At New-
town, Long Island, the English flag was hoisted.8 Threats
were made to raise it in Albany county.9 The Hickey plot
was a " barbarous and infernal " conspiracy of the loyalists
to murder all of Washington's staff-officers, seize him, blow
up the magazines, arm all loyalists and capture the city upon

1 Am. Archs.. 5th ser., ii, 385, 404, iii, 577, 578, 582, 583, 584.

1 Ibid., i, 1501, ii, 247, 249; MS. Revolutionary Papers, v, 249. Sir John
Johnson's Royal Regiment of New York was made up of 800 loyalists, mostly
Scotch and Dutch, and in religion Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Presbyterian.
Croil, A Short Sketch of Canad. Hist., 128. The roll of the second battalion of
the King's Royal Regiment is given in Caniff, The Settlement of Upper Canada,
in the appendix, 667.

*Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1032. 4 Ibid., 438, 1319.

5 Ibid., v, 580, 601-604, vi, 455, 471. 477. 482.

• Ibid., iii, 889, vi, 1319, 1324, 1328, 5th ser., iii, 574-575. 585; Min- of Prov.
Cong., iii, 37; cf. Baird, Hist, of Rye, 225-227.

T Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1252.

8 Ibid., 584, 1343, 1344, 1347- ' W- v> 343. 345-

1 04 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 04

the arrival of the British.1 All loyalists of southern New
York were believed to be in this plot,2 and Governor Tryon
was thought to be its instigator. The committee on con
spiracies arrested and tried the mayor of New York and
thirty-five other loyalists.3 One of Washington's guards,
Thomas Hickey, was hanged for treason, and with that the
matter dropped.4 Rumors of negro and Indian plots and
conspiracies were also rife.5 For the most part there was a
solid foundation for these distressing reports.

In Westchester county 500 militia were waiting for the
arrival of British forces to take up arms for the king.6 This
was true of every part of the province. By the time Gen
eral Howe reached New York not less than 2,500 loyalist
soldiers had already joined the king's forces at various
points, while several times that number were ready to do so
at the first opportunity. The Americans were constantly
complaining of desertions to the British.7

General Howe came to New York expecting much help
from the " friends of government." He was told on his
arrival that the loyalists were eager to aid him to defeat
their rebellious brethren.8 The first loyalist troops raised
by Howe were a provincial corps and a company of horse
on Staten Island.9 From this small beginning the number

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1054, 1058, 1431 ; Almoris Remembrancer, iii, 339.
* Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 255-257; Am. Archs., 4th ser.,vi, 1152; Cal. of
N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 340.

3 Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 255-257; Am. Archs. ,4th ser., vi, 1054.

4 Ibid., 1058, 1084-1086, noi, 1119, 1120.

5 Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 47 ; Gaine's A7". Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury,
March 6, 1775; Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., i, 29, 105, 175-177, 198; MS'
Revolutionary Papers, v, 199, 327; Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 574.

6 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 692, 603-694; Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 623,
ii, 310, 963, 841, 845.

1 Ibid., 241-243. * Ibid., 622; cf. ibid., ii, 519.

9 Ibid., 122, 200; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 681, 705

IOC] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS

increased until thousands were in the royal service. General
Howe offered every inducement in the way of commissions,
bounties, and the pay of regulars to enlist them.1 From the
first the " disaffected " swelled his forces by individuals and
by bands.2

Governor Tryon early asked the honor of commanding
the provincial loyalists and was appointed " Major General
of Provincial Forces."3 On July 8, 1776, he began to raise
1,300 men on Long Island and Staten Island.4 By August
16, he had succeeded in raising a "Provincial Corps."5
When he made his invasion of Connecticut, sometime later,
he had 2,000 Long Island loyalists under his command.6
In Westchester county he raised a troop of Light Horse of
the county's " elite " and made James DeLancey captain,7
while in December, 1777, he enlisted 100 men up the Hud
son and " swore" 300 more.8 Early in 1778 he was given
the command of a regiment of regulars,9 and in the fall of
the same year, with 1,000 loyalist troops, he went to Suffolk
county, where he suppressed the whigs and forced all of
them to take an oath of allegiance.10 His valuable services
continued until 1780, when he returned to England.

Loyalist troops under Tryon took an active part in the
battle of Long Island and were publicly thanked by General
Howe.11 At least two companies from New York city were

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 68 1, 704-705; Am. ^/r>fo.,4thser.,iv, 1776,
r, 1473, vi, 1032, 5th ser., i, 122, 200, 1237, «» 5°6» i"» I49°J Moore, Diary of Am.
Rev., i, 288-291; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 680-681.

I Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 109, 120, 200, 1102, 1109, 1233, 1546.

8 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 697-698, 705, 706, 708, 715.

4 Ibid., 681; Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 120, 1396.

4 Ibid., 980; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 710.

6 Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., i, 1 7 7- 1 78. 7 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 717-71 8.

• Ibid., 734. • Ibid., 746, 751. 10 Ibid., 750, 75 3, 754.

II Ibid..^, 691 ; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 107, 135, 189, 198, 200, 244, 449, 661,
669, 980.

1 06 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK

engaged.1 This victory and the easy occupation of the
capital city caused the loyalists jubilantly to " raise their
heads."2 Loyalists flocked to the city daily and enlistments
were very numerous.3 Eight hundred stands of arms were
sent to Queens County and received " with demonstrations
of joy."4 A paymaster-general was appointed, and in
structed to keep the accounts of loyalists separate.5

Oliver DeLancey was commissioned brigadier general to
raise 1,500 loyalists to defend Long Island.6 The whigs
were first subdued and then inducements were offered to
those who would enlist.7 One battalion was led by Colonel
Gabriel Ludlow, a second by Colonel George Brewerton, and
the third by General DeLancey. After some service on the
island two battalions were in 1778 sent to Georgia, the third
remaining at home. At the close of the war they went to
Nova Scotia.8

Major Robert Rogers was commissioned to recruit a regi
ment for general serviced Drafts were authorized, if neces
sary.10 He began to enlist men in August, 1776." William
Lounsbury and Richard Miller were both shot in attempting
to raise men for him in Westchester county.12 A long list of

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 494; Stedman, American War, i, 215.

* Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 661.

3 Gaine's W. Y. Gazette and Weekly Mercury, no. 1304; Am Archs., 5th ser.,
",991.

* Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 696, 697.

5 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 980.

6 Ibid., ii, 345, 494, 504; Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 347; Docs. rel. to
N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 686, 687; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., \, 264.

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 325, 505, 506,564, 566; cf. ibid., 252, 295.

8 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 265-268.

9 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 686, 687; Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1236, ii,
244, 494; Can. Archs. (1888), Haldimand Collection, 672, 673.

10 Am. Archs., 5th ser,, ii, 244. " Ibid., \, 1236, 1556, ii, 310.
"Ibid., i, 1236, 1556, ii, 310, 504, iii, 473.

107] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS lOy

the names of men who were ready to join the " ministerial
army " from that section was sent to Governor Tryon in July.1
By December Rogers, with 700 rangers, was making raids
through that county and committing great havoc,2 forcing
the whigs to appeal again and again for aid.3 In 1779 Sir
Henry Clinton commissioned him to raise two battalions of
rangers,4 and he met with considerable success.5

In December, 1776, Colonel Fanning was given a warrant
to raise 500 provincials.6 "We are daily getting the most
authentic intelligence of bodies of men enlisted and armed,"
wrote the committee of safety to General Washington, who, in
turn, wrote to the President of Congress that the British were
pushing their recruiting schemes "with uncommon indus
try." 7 It was rumored that four or five regiments of loyal
ists were formed before I777.8 A large part of the 6,000
seamen in the metropolis were loyalists.9 Many who had
been impressed into American service, now deserted and
returned to their allegiance.10 Washington, in a despairing
letter to Congress, said that the whole army was disaffected.
Many joined the army for bounties and then deserted.11 The
British had refused to bombard the city of New York be
cause of the large amount of tory property which it con-

I Am. Arc/is., 5th ser., i, 623, ii, 841, 845. * Ibid., iii, 473, 1172.

'A Ibid., ii, 991, iii, 371, 372, 1172; Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 463.
* Can. Archs., (1888), Haldimand Collection, 673.
5 Ibid., 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679.
8 Docs. rel. to A7. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 694.

''jfour. of Prov. Cong., i, 670; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 416, 564, iii, 275; cj.
ibid., ii, 120, 167, 867, 939.

8 Ibid., ii, 1 249 ; MS. Revolutionary Papers ( 1 776) , vi. 333.

9 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 772.

10 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 564.

II MS. Revolutionary Papers, v, 301 ; Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 355, 1459, ii, uo,
167, 352-

1 08 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 og

tained.1 Washington was urged to burn it " because two-
thirds of the property of the city and suburbs belong to the
tories." 2 John Jay and General Greene also urged its destruc
tion. 3 " That cursed town/' wrote another, " from first to
last has been ruinous to the common cause." But Con
gress forbade its destruction.4

With the capture of all southern New York, the loyal
ists to the north became bolder and more active.5 The
" disarmed and disaffected" in Westchester, Orange, Dutch-
ess and Ulster counties, estimated to be about 2,300, were
waiting for a chance to join Howe, and he was anxious to
enlist them.6 Hundreds of negroes fled to the British.7
There was a constant fear that the loyalists along the Hud
son would organize an armed revolt.8 They did spike the
300 or 400 cannon which were found along the course of the
Harlem river.9 The county committees were busy arresting
and exiling the loyalists who were enlisting or had enlisted.10
Almost the whole population of Livingston manor took an
oath of secrecy and allegiance.11 Captain John Duerson
wrote to the Provincial Congress from Dutchess county that
his whole militia company was tory except the lieutenant
and himself, and Lewis Morris complained that out of his
entire regiment not more than a colonel's command was true

1 Sloane, French War and the Revolution, 241.

* Scottish Revie-w, American Loyalists, v, 231.

* Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 1 82.
*/#</.. 135.

5 Simms, Frontiersmen of New York, 550; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 1 1 73. iii, 205.

6 Ibid,, 597-599, 661. 7 Ibid., 663.
8 Jour, of Prov. Cong., i, 669, 670, 757; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 1026.

" Ibid., 4th ser., iv, 1068, 1069, 1072, 1073, 1096, noi, 1102.
10 Ibid., 5th ser., ii, 979, iii, 265, 467-468, 470-471 ; Jour, of Prov. Cong., i, 909,
910-911,918-919.

11 /#</., i, 9 1 8, May, 1777.

ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS

to the American cause.1 In another district eighty militia
men refused to organize except under officers of the English
government.3 So great was the disaffection and so difficult
was it to raise troops, that the neighboring states were asked
to send aid.3 " Nothing can be more alarming than the
present situation of our state," wrote the Convention to
Washington.4 On the contrary, the king was very well sat
isfied with the loyalty of New York.5 It was declared that,
if America fell, it would be by the death-thrust of the loyal
ists rather than by the British.6

In the campaign of 1777, it was planned that General
Burgoyne should invade New York from the north, and that
Howe should meet him from the south. At the same time
Colonel St. Leger, with Sir John Johnson and his loyalists,
and Captain Brant and his Indians, was to descend the
Mohawk to meet them. The loyalists were jubilant at this
plan, and boasted that they alone could capture New York.7
At last the loyalists of the Hudson valley were to have an
opportunity to prove their loyalty. As Burgoyne ap
proached Albany, hundreds ot loyalists joined him.8 Col
onel Skeene, with all the forces he could raise, fought under
British standards.9 A special committee had to be sent to
Albany in the fall of 1776, to help General Schuyler sup-

1 jfour. of Prov. Conv., i, 654.

2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 696.

:; Ibid., 5th ser., ii, 1026, iii, 589; Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 669, 670, 757.

* Ibid,, 669, 670.

b Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 704-705, 706, 789,

6 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 821 ; cf. ibid., \, 1492. Letter of Convention to Wash
ington, August 9, 1776.

' Ibid.,4i\i ser., vi, 509; Jour. of. Prov. Conv., i, 906.

8 Ibid., 702-703, 1048, 1057, ii, 497; MS. Min. of Comsrs., i, Apr. 11-20, 1778;
Jones, Hist. of A . Y., i, 198; cf. Macauley, Hist, of X. K, iii, 202.

H Ibid., 202; Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, noi ; cf. Kellogg, Hist, of Whitehall.

I i o LOYALISM IN NE IV YORK \\\V

press various insurrections.1 In May, 1777, uprisings were
reported in the counties of Albany, Tryon, Charlotte, Ulster,
Cumberland, Gloucester and Orange.2 General Schuyler
feared that "so much toryism " in the New Hampshire
Grants would greatly aid Burgoyne.3 The Tryon county
committee wrote to the committee of safety, July 1 8, 1777,
" More than half of our inhabitants are resolved not to lift
up arms in defense of this county" against the invasion of
" British troops, tories and savages."4 General Heath wrote
to Washington from Orange county that " the tories are
joining the enemy and insulting and disarming the whigs,
stripping them of cattle, effects, etc."5 Although the loyal
ists served Burgoyne nobly on the battlefield and in supply
ing his army, yet not one word in their behalf was introduced
into his articles of capitulation.6 He even blamed them for
his defeat, and after the surrender several thousand of them
were forced either to flee to Canada, or to trust to the mercy
of their victorious enemies.7 Chief among those who es
caped was " Jessup's Corps" or " Jessup's Battalion," which,
led by two brothers, had fled to Canada in the fall of 1776
and, until organized separately the following spring, had
formed a part of Sir John Johnson's regiment. Then it
joined Burgoyne, and after his surrender returned to Can
ada, but was " actively engaged in a bitter partisan warfare"

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 561, 563-565, 566, 567, 579, 588, 589; Jour, of
Prov. Conv., i, 699, 701.

1 Cf. Exam, of Joseph Galloway by Com. of House of Commons, 23; Jour, of
Prov. Conv., i, 912.

* Ibid., 1005.

* Ibid., 1006, 1007, 1009, ion, 1017, 1018.

6 Ibid., 719; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, c ,, iii, 1169.

•Jones, Hist, of N. Y.,'\, 681-686; N. Y. Packet, Oct. 23, 1777; Jour, of Prov t
Conv., ii, 490.
T Ibid., i, 1048, 1057; De Peyster, Sir John Johnson's Orderly Book, 37.

! j

ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS

till the conflict ended.1 Peeter's corps of loyalists was at
Bennington, and 157 of its number were killed.2

St. Leger commanded a loyalist invasion — Sir John John
son's "Royal Greens,"3 Butler's " Rangers," a few hundred
regulars, and about eight hundred Indians under Colonel
David Claus and Captain Brant, constituting the small force
of which he was the leader.4 Oriskany was a battle between
brothers, fathers, sons, and neighbors. Hence, in this en
counter, to political differences were added hate, spite and
thirst for revenge. In this " fratricidal butchery" most of the
males of the Mohawk valley perished, and if Tryon county
"smiled again during the war it smiled through tears."5

Alexander and John McDonald, Scotchmen of the Roman
faith, left Johnstown with Sir John Johnson in 1776, returned
the next spring, collected a company of Scotch and German
loyalists and escaped with them to Canada. John McDonald
was killed at Oriskany, but his brother with 300 tories fell
upon Schoharie in 1778 with barbarous cruelty, was at Che-
mung the next year with Sir John, and in 1781 committed
inhuman barbarities in the Mohawk valley.6

In May, 1780, Sir John Johnson fell upon his "rebellious
birthplace," left a dismal testimony of his visit and escaped
with rich booty and many prisoners. In August and Sep
tember he ascended the St. Lawrence, the Oswego, crossed
Lake Oneida, traversed Madison and Otsego counties to the

'De Peyster, Sir John Johnson's Orderly Hook, 37-38, note I. Ryerson
thinks the loyalists numbered twice as many as Burgoyne's army, but is certainly
mistaken. Hist of American Loyalists, ii, 147.

1 Thatcher, Military Journal, 91, 93.

1 Called also " The King's Royal Kef hnent of New York," " The Queen's Loyal
New Yorkers," and " Sir John Johnson'., ^iment."

4 De Peyster, Sir John Johnson's Orderly Book, civ.

*/i»W.,lii-liii; Jones, //«/. of N. Y., i, 217.

' Oe Peyster, Sir John Johnson's Orderly Bo^k, 56-57, note?.

U2 LO YALISM IN Nh IV YORK [ 1 1 2

Schoharie valley. He devastated it and then crossed again
to the Mohawk valley to repeat his destructive work.
Attempts to crush him failed. He had with him on this
raid his own regiment of " Royal Greens," 200 of Butler's
14 Loyalist Rangers," and some regulars and Indians.1

The enlistment of loyalist troops in New York continued
throughout the war.2 After the surrender of Burgoyne the
loyalists who fought on New York soil were engaged under
Sir John Johnson in frontier warfare. The others, like
Simcoe's "Queen's Rangers," raised in 1776, saw action in
the states to the south.3 In 1779 Willliam Axtell was com
missioned colonel of 500 men to be raised in Kings county,
and when New York city was threatened, in five days 6,000
loyalists volunteered as militia. They formed 62 companies
and were drilled three times a week by the first gentlemen
of the state, and served till 1783.5 There were 2,000 loyal
militiamen on Long Island and 400 on Staten Island. In
1781 there were 2,500 armed loyalist provincials in New
York city.6 Loyalist privateers also were fitted out and
infested the shores of southern New York and New Jersey.7

Judging from the inadequate records, it appears that there
must have been at least 15,000 New York loyalists in the
British army and navy, and at least 8,500 loyalist militia,
making a total in that state of 23,500 loyalist troops. This

1 De Peyster, Sir John Johnson's Orderly Book, cxlii, cxlviii;, Roberts, X. Y.
in the Rev., xiii-xviii.

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 793. The Act of Attainder of 1779, and
other cruel acts against the loyalists, led many to enlist in the latter stage of the
war. Rivington's Royal Gazette, Feb. 2, 1 780, no. 349.

3 Surrendered with Cornwallis at Yorktown, 1781. Clute, History of Staten.
Island, 99, zoo, 104.

* Jones, Hist, of N. Y., 304.

*Rivington's Royal Gazette, Feb. 9, 1780, no. 350; Jones, Hist, of X. Y., i,
322-323.

6 Ibid., 348. 7 Ibid., 300.

II3] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS

was more than any other colony furnished, and perhaps as
many as were raised by all others combined. The revolu
tionary troops from New York numbered only 17,781 regu
lars, or 41,633 including the militia.1 New York loyalists
fought in every battle on New York soil, and in most of the
other battles of the war, and were repeatedly commended for
their gallantry.

Those who did not enlist showed their loyalty in other
ways. Staten Island raised ^500 for the support of the
loyalist troops.2 New York city gave .£2,000 in two weeks
for the same purpose.3 For DeLancey's brigade " monies
were contributed by the inhabitants of every town upon the
island."4 Kings county contributed £300 for Colonel Fan-
ning's battalion,5 while Queens and Suffolk collected larger
sums.6 The Quakers furnished clothing and other materials.7
Wagons, horses, oxen, live stock, wood and farm, garden
and orchard products were during a period of seven years
contributed to the cause.8 In 1779, the loyalist ladies of
New York city presented a privateer, " The Fair American,"

1 Roberts, N. Y. in the Rev., iv. Among the loyalist troops furnished by New
York were the King's Rangers, the Royal American Fencibles, the Queen's Ran
gers, the New York Volunteers, the King's American Regiment, the Prince of
Wales American Volunteers, De Lancey's Battalions, the Second American Reg
iment, tbe King's American Dragoons, the Loyal American Regiment, the Ameri
can Legion, the Orange Rangers, the Guides and Pioneers, the Westchester Volun
teers, and the Associated Loyalists. At one time Col. Archibald Hamilton, of
New York, commanded 17 companies of loyal militia.

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 711. 3 Ibid., 711.

4 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 265-266.

6 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Co!. Hist., viii, 696.

' Ibid., 711. Jamaica alone sent ^219 from 189 persons. Onderdonk, Queens
Co. in Olden Times, 53.

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 696.

*Am.Archs.t $th ser., i, 23, 1103, ii, 416, 506, 564, 566, 825, Hi, 674; your.
tf Prov. Conv.t i, 1005.

1 14 LOYAL1SM IN NEW YORK [x I4

to the British as a New Year's gift.1 The " Marine Society"
raised an artillery company to defend the city.2

In many other ways the loyalists made themselves useful.
They acted as armed police.3 Most of the spies in the British
service were loyalists.4 In 1779 they suggested that an
independent organization be formed to aid the British, to
protect themselves and to requite the whigs for the outrages,
confiscations and murders of which they were guilty. The
king and ministry approved of the plan, and ordered Sir
Henry Clinton to permit its execution. Consequently on
Dec. 27, 1780, the "Board of Directors of the Associated
Loyalists" was organized in New York city.5 William
Franklin was president and ten directors assisted him, each
receiving a salary of £200 sterling a year with rations. This
body continued until Sir Guy Carleton broke it up in 1782.
Its object was to unite the loyalists of all the states into
three "societies" of "associators," for the purposes of self-
preservation and revenge. One "society," consisting of
cavalry, was organized at Kingsbridge, Morrisania and
Westchester in order to make incursions against the whigs
of that region. A second "society" was created on Long
Island to carry on piratical and marauding warfare on the
coasts of Connecticut and eastern New York. The third
"society" was formed in New York city and on Staten
Island to harass the Jersey coast and the region along the
Hudson. These "societies" were led by officers who were
commissioned by the British commander-in-chief, but who
were wholly dependent upon the board. They were given

1 Rivington's Royal Gazette, no. 240, Jan. 13, 1779, July 19, 1780, no. 397.
1 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 421-423.
*Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 696.

4 Simms, Frontiersmen of New York, 586, 588; Thatcher, Military Journal,
99, 409-

* Rivington's Royal Gazette, December 30, 1780.

115] ACTIVITY OF LOYALISTS 1 1 5

arms and vessels by the British, could keep all their cap
tures and were allowed to exchange prisoners for " asso
ciated loyalists." They did much damage and kept south
ern New York in a state of constant turmoil. At the close
of the war most of them went to Nova Scotia.1

In New York Great Britain certainly had no reason to
complain of the lack of helpful activity from the loyalists.
Their blood and treasure were freely sacrificed on the altar
of imperial patriotism.

1 Jones, Hist, of N. V., i, 300, 303, 482; cf. Bolton, Wutchestcr Co., i, pp.
xiii, xiv; cf. Baird, Hist, oj Rye, 241.

CHAPTER VI

COMMISSIONERS ON LOYALISTS, 1776-1781

MAY 10, 1776, the Continental Congress recommended
the establishment of state governments.1 Three weeks later
the New York Provincial Congress declared the royal gov
ernment "dissolved," the government by Congress and com
mittees "unsatisfactory," and ordered the county committees
to cause the people to send deputies, on July 9, to New
York city, to discuss the " instituting of a new government."'
The Constitutional Convention thus called was forced to
meet at White Plains. Its first act was to ratify the Decla
ration of Independence.3 Next it instructed all whig offi
cers to continue to act " in the name of the state of New
York." 4 Civil, and not military, law was declared to be in
force.5 In August a committee was named to draw up a
plan for a new government,6 but it was not until April 20,
1777, that the constitution it framed was adopted.7 The
election or appointment of local, county and state officers
then began, and continued for some months.8

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1671, 1701 ; cf. ibid., v, 1 180, vi, 395, 633, 825.

1 Ibid., 1332, 1337, 1351; cf. ibid. 725, 895, 5th ser., i, 40, 103; Min. of Prov.
Cong.,\, 650-652, 688.

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1387, 1389, 1391, 1397.

*lbid., 1410.

* Jour, of Prov. Conv.t i, 729.

6 Ibid., 552; Am. Archs., 5th ser.,i, 1465; Jones, Hist, oj N. K, i, 143, 150, 642.

» Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 892-898.

•/«</., 818, 829, 907, 912, 913, 917, 937,948, 99°, 1007, 1021, 1027, 1053,
1061, 1 1 12; Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 687.

116 [116

1 7 ]

COMMISSIONERS ON L O YALIS TS

The new government, however, did not at once go fully
into operation. In fact it was itinerant and desultory until
1783. The Convention continued in session until May 13,
1777, when it finally dissolved. The continuation of the
government was entrusted to a committee, or council of
safety, previously appointed, with the governor at its head,
until the organization contemplated by the Convention should
be completed.1 The council of safety continued to act with
" ordinance" power, after the legislature was organized and
was transacting public business,2 and to take cognizance of
cases involving loyalists even subsequent to the appointment
of a special board for that work.3 After the formation of a
state government the status of the loyalists was clearly
defined. Consequently their treatment became more uni
form and at the same time harsher. The inquisitorial methods
and machinery developed previous to the Declaration of In-
depence were continued by the Constitutional Convention
and by the new state government.

Numerous petitions, both humble and defiant, were sent
by the loyalists to the Convention, to the legislature and
to the three state committees on loyalists. Some begged
for a trial to prove their innocence,4 a few defiantly de
manded death or liberty,5 several wished to join their families
within the British lines,6 and many made minor requests.7

1 your, of Prov. Conv.. i, 916.
1 Proceedengs of Assembly, \, 25.

8 Jour, of Prov. Ctnv., i, 663, 665, 674, 679; Ant. Arch*., 5th ser., ii, 673, 677,
683,687,711.

* Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 175, 1163, 1481, 1518, ii, 109,694, 1549, 1551, iii,
l°37» I098» 1320; MS. Revolutionary Papers (1776), v, 169, 183; Public Papert
of George Clinton, i, 246.

6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 268.

*IHd., 1154, 1167, 1204, 1263, 1351, 1379; MS. Revolutionary Papers, (1776),
ri, 65, 201.

T Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1096, 1455.

I I 8 LO YALISM IN NE IV YORK [ l l g

As a rule these petitions were heard and then answered as
the merits in each case deserved. It was said in 1777 that
the leniency of the state authorities led all imprisoned loyal
ists to petition for release.1

From all sides came demands to the Convention for
sterner measures against these domestic foes. Washington
urged their immediate removal from the state,2 and Gouver-
neur Morris advocated the same course as being the most
effectual.3 The New York city jails were early filled with
tories, mostly from Long Island, and consequently the whigs
in general requested that they be sent to safer quarters.4
The situation was dangerous and something must be done.
Prompt action was promised.5

The Convention, surrounded by the British and the loyal
ists, felt it more necessary to define citizenship and treason
than to form a constitution. Hence one of the first things
it did was to resolve, July 16, 1776, that all persons abiding
in the state under its laws owed " allegiance to the said
laws," and were " members of the state." Temporary resi
dents held the same relation. All " members" who made
war against the state, or adhered to the king or other ene
mies, or aided them, were " guilty of treason against the
state," the penalty for which was death. 6 County and sub
committees were instructed to seize and secure immediately,
" all such persons whose going at large at this critical time
they should deem dangerous to the liberties of the state."
Loyalists might appeal from local to county committees, and
all cases were to be reported to the Convention.7 The county
committees were given full power to dispose of imprisoned
tories for public protection, but they could employ no "un-

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 963, 964, 966.

2 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 255, 351, 1401. ! Ibid., 334. * Ibid., 335.
*Jbid., 1402. *Ibid., 1403, 1410.
1 Ibid., 1410.

! I9] COMMISSIONERS ON LOYALISTS x ig

necessary severity." Traitors, however, were to be dealt with
harshly.1

On the strength of these acts, Washington urged the com
mittee of New York city to remove " all equivocal and sus
picious persons/' and justified the act on the ground of
international practice and the law of self-preservation.1
When, early in August, a battle became imminent, believing
it " highly improper" to let tories remain where they could
do more mischief than in the enemies' camp, he seized them
and removed them to Connecticut. But he ordered them to
be well treated and their property to be protected, and fully
explained to the Convention the reasons for his actions.3

The Convention dismissed the committee appointed to
execute the resolves of June 5, 1776,* and itself took cogni
zance of all urgent cases. The usual course, however, was
to arrest the loyalists, commit them to jail and appoint a
special committee to examine them, and then to sentence
them.5 Many were banished to Connecticut.6 In some
cases as a temporary expedient the Convention ordered
the officers of the county militia companies, when on the
march, to take into their service as fatigue men " all the dis
armed and disaffected" men who were from 16 to 55 years
of age.7 It even passed judgment on New Jersey loyalists.8
So numerous were the complaints about dangerous loyalists,
and so many cases were before the Convention, while at the
same time a British army was entering the state from the
south and another was forming on the north, that it was

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1540, August 26, 1776. z Ibid., 330, 448, 452.
8 Ibid., 917, 981,989, 1501. ^ Ibid., 1482, August 7, 1776.

3 Ibid.t 1402, 1546, 1547, 1554, 1557; Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 855, 856, 882.

6 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 888, 889, 1004, 1391, 1397, 1419, 1441, 1445, 1526,
!529» ". 593. etc.

7 Ibid.t 1496.

*Ibid.t 1397, 1415, 1441, 1445, 1446, 1447, J535-

1 20 LOYALISM IN NE W YORK [ ! 2Q

felt to be necessary to effect a more perfect organization for
the purpose of detecting and supressing "such iniquitous
practices and conspiracies" of the " parricides." Conse
quently, on September 21, 1776, a new committee was
formed.1

This body of seven men now became the head of the in
quisitorial system." It was empowered to send for persons
and papers, and to seize, imprison or remove all dangerous
persons.3 A body of troops was placed at the disposal of
the committee to enforce its will.4 Money was freely granted
to it from the state treasury.5 Accurate minutes were ordered
kept. The chairman and two members were to constitute a
quorum. The county committees were made subordinate to
it, and were ordered to report all loyalist " machinations and
conspiracies."6 A secret service system was established,
and express riders were employed.7 A treasurer and auditor
were appointed, and, as the jails were filled, a commissary
became necessary.8

The new committee sat daily, and was overwhelmed with
work.9 The Convention and committee of safety turned all
tory cases and correspondence over to it.10 Even prisoners of
war were entrusted to its charge. Reports of traitorous plots
and schemes came in to it from all directions. In October it
was feared that the loyalists would seize the Highland passes
and effect a junction with the British ; hence, extra precaution

1 Am. Archs., 5th set., ii, 706, 712, 713, 714, 715, 979, iii, 467; Jour, of Prov.
Conv., i, 669, 684; Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 359-362.
* Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 706, 712-714, iii, 249, 467. l Ibid., 467.

4 Ibid., 238, 251, 257; your, of Prov. Conv., i, 669, 684.
6 Ibid., 687, 707; cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1543.
*Ibid., iii, 467. ''Ibid., 1547, 1549. *Ibid., I549-I551' 1SS2~1SSS-

9 Ibid., ii, 979, iii, 238; Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 669.

10 Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 715, 717, iii, 230; Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 665, 687-
689,756,758,760,775,784.

1 2 i ] COMMISSIONERS ON LO YALISTS 1 2 1

was taken."1 The local boards were instructed to hunt out
and arrest every tory.2 With this vast network of surveil
lance it was thought that no tory plots could mature, nor any
dangerous loyalists escape, without detection. Its procedure
was summary, and very similar to that of the previous com
mittee ; loyalists were arrested under much the same charges
as formerly.

The first class to be tried consisted of loyalists who had
enlisted with the British,3 and disaffected militiamen.4 Then
other dangerous persons were disposed of. In four months
at least 500 cases were separately examined. As many as
thirty-three were considered in one day. The jails were
crowded and a large number of petitions and letters from
both whigs and loyalists, was sent to the committee. That
it did such a volume of work, and did it thoroughly and on
the whole fairly, is rather remarkable.

Under the resolution of September 21, no penalty severer
than that of transportation could be inflicted, and this, in
fact, was the form of punishment most frequently resorted
to. Loyalists were sent west to Pennsylvania,5 several hun
dred were sent to New Hampshire,6 and others to Connecti
cut 7 and Massachusetts.8 This was done at their own ex
pense. The most vicious and dangerous were confined in
jail after transportation,9 but the rest were given certain free
dom on parole. Those less feared were imprisoned in the
state or released on parole.10 Some were allowed to join the

1 Ant. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 991, iii, 238, 257. * Ibid., ii, 883.

1 Ibid., ii, 979. * ibid., iii, 265.

* your, of Prov. Conv., i, 1000; Am. Archs., 5th ser., ii, 979, 1314.

' Ibid., iii, 467-468, 469, 470, 471, 825.

T jfour. of Prov. Conv., ii, 493, gives a list of loyalists sent to Connecticut at their
own expense; cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 888, 989-990, 1004,1391-1392, 1441,
1445,1526-1530.

1 Ibid., ii, 1314, iii, 1540-1541. 9 Ibid., 470-471. 10 Ibid., 1540-1541.

122 LO YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 2 2

British, while others were forced to take the oath of alle
giance.1 Still other penalties were : imprisonment with hard
labor,2 confinement in irons3 and enforced labor on the bar
racks.4 Those who sought to evade their penalties were
treated more harshly.5

On October 19, a special committee of twelve was ap
pointed to co-operate with General Schuyler in the north,
and it served for a month. Its mode of procedure resembled
that of the general committee on tories. It used troops to
suppress insurrections at Helleberg, on the Rensselaer
manor, the Livingston manor and in Tryon county; and it
tried and sentenced loyalists, impressed wagons and drivers
and co-operated with the committees of Albany county and
with other committees.6

Efforts, however, were made to treat the loyalists hu
manely. When sick, medical attendance was allowed them.7
Boys were ordered to be mildly treated.8 A starving loyal
ist and his family were fed.9 Again and again the families
of loyalists were allowed to join fathers and brothers.10 Two
men were named in each district to grant them passes. If
loyalists were found outside their neigborhoods without
passes after November 20, 1776, they were subject to arrest.11
Petitions were willingly heard and efforts were made to give
the accused a fair trial.1" When a Westchester county loyalist,

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 1540. * Ibid., 5th ser., ii, 683, iii, 302.

I Ibid., 1547-1549. * Ibid.t 302. *Jour. of Prov. Conv., i, 743.

* Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 561, 563-565, 566, 579, 588,589; Jour, of Prov.
Conv., i, 699-670, 701.

»/&•</., 654. 8 Ibid., 667.

9 Ibid.; cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 234.

10 Jour, of Prov. Conv., 768, 802, 845, 846.

II Ibid., 706. About 4000 blank passes were printed. Loyalists had to pay six
pence for them. Cf. case of Lady Johnson, Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 1102, 1158,
1207, 1236.

11 Ibid., 1354, 1355, 1367, 1390-1391, 1434, I452-

1 2 3 ] COMMISSIONERS ON LO YALIS TS ! 2 3

because of ill-health, asked for a release from prison, a physi
cian was ordered to examine him, and he was sent to a neigh
boring state.1 These instances and others that could be
cited, indicate that the principal aim of the whigs was to
take from the loyalists, who were dangerous political ene
mies, their power to work injury. The desire for personal
vengeance or for the infliction of undue or unnecessary pun
ishment also appeared in many cases, but it did not con
stitute the rule. The treatment which the loyalists received
varied largely with the fortunes of war, and hence with the
danger which was apprehended from them.

The committee adjourned December 31, 1776,' and re
ported to the committee of safety a week later. On Febru
ary 1 1, 1777, it was dissolved, and a new committee of three
members was appointed to take its place.3 This new trium
virate succeeded to all the powers of the former body and
carried on its work.4 It acted, however, under the instruc
tions of the legislature.5 A month later its membership was
increased to five,6 and on August 28 four more assistants
were added,7 making the number nine.

Early in 1777 it was felt that some distinction ought to be
made between the dangerous loyalists and those who might
be reclaimed.8 The commissioners on conspiracies, there
fore, were ordered by the Convention to send for all persons
not guilty of treason, and to offer them an oath binding
them to be faithful citizens of New York state and to reveal
all plots against the liberties of America. Those taking the

1 Am. Arc/is., 5th ser., i, 1448, 1454. l Ibid., iii, 1555-1558.

8 Jour, of ' Prov. Conv., i, 803. Egbert Benson, Jacobus Swartwaurt and Me
lancton Smith.

*Ibid.t 812, 828, 835. 6 Cf. ibid., 865, 872, 889, 898, 899, 968, etc.

6 Ibid., 827. Peter M. Contine and Joseph Strong were added.

1 1bid., 1050.

8 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 823; cf. ibid., 755, ii, 442-443.

1 24 LOYALISM IN NE W YORK r j 2^

oath were to be discharged and given the "privileges of
freemen." Those refusing for six days to take it were to be
sent, with their families, wearing apparel and household fur
niture, to New York city, or to some other city held by the
British. Those who refused thus to depart were to be im
prisoned and treated as " open enemies of this state," and
those who failed to appear before the commissioners were to
be considered " as having gone over to the enemy," and
their personal property was to be sold for the benefit of the
state.1

This meant hard work for the commissioners. Money
was freely granted for their purposes,' but the discretionary
power to pardon or to dismiss prisoners placed heavy respon
sibilities upon their shoulders.3 Though the Convention was
disposed to be lenient,4 yet on April 21, 1777, it ordered
county and local committees to have all loyalists seized.*
On May Qth, hearing that many loyalists who had joined the
British had been deceived and were desirous of returning to
their allegiance, the Convention decreed that all " delin
quents" who should appear before any magistrate before
July I and take the oath, should receive " a full and free par
don for all and every treasonable act."6 A few of the "de
luded " accepted the proffer, 7 probably fifty in all up to the
beginning of 1778.

When the loyalists of any locality began an uprising, the
Convention acted with speed and power. Early in May,
1777, came the rumor that the tories were preparing an out
break in Dutchess and Westchester counties, on Livingston
manor and at points further up the Hudson.8 Two groups

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 827, 855-856. * Ibid., 865, 1 106.

» Ibid., 844, 889. « Ibid., 888. 6 Ibid., 899. 6 Ibid., 921.

T Ibid, 933, 935, 937, 939, 950, 958, 960, 965, 975, 976, 978, 991, 997, 1020,
1021, 1043, 1051, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1074, 1080, etc.
8 Ibid., 910-911, 918-919.

! 2 5 ] COMMISSIONERS ON LO YALIS TS ! 2 5

of three commissioners each were sent out to quell these
movements, one to Rhinebeck and Livingston manor and
the other to Dutchess and Westchester counties. They were
empowered to call out the militia, capture or kill -all loyalists
found in arms, seize all other loyalists and execute all spies
" in terrorem." If possible, the two groups of commission
ers were to unite and assist each other.1 This was the sever
est action yet taken.2 When, somewhat later, reports of up
risings in Albany, Tryon, Charlotte, Cumberland, Gloucester^
Ulster and Orange counties reached the Convention, even
the county committees were instructed to call out the militia
and to destroy all who were found in arms against the state.
To hold the large number of loyalist prisoners a well-
guarded " fleet-prison " was established on the Hudson. In
all parts of the state they were ordered to be arrested and sent
to this prison at their own expense.3 The commissioners on
conspiracies were ordered to have all loyalists who were
confined in New England jails also sent to the " fleet-
prison." 4 A warden, " victualler," commissary and clerk
for the prison were appointed to look after them.5 The
loyalists who escaped were to be charged with " felony,"
and, if proved guilty by the commissioners and a jury,
executed at once.6 Others were to be tried and discharged
if found innocent.7 When the British captured the forts in
the Highlands, the prisoners were ordered to be sent to
Hartford, Connecticut.8 On January 2, 1778, they were
ordered to be brought back by the commissioners, exam
ined, pardoned if found innocent, or, if found guilty, impris
oned in New York jails.9

1 Jour, of Prov. Con-v., i, 909, 910, 911. * Ibid., 912.

8 Ibid., 908, 927, 967, 988, 991, 1034, 1036.

* Ibid., 968. * Jbid.t 973-974; cf. ibid., 920.

*lbid., 908. * Ibid., 1054, 1067, Sept. and Oct., 1777.

*Ibid., 1063-1064, 1105. •/#</.. 1 1 06.

126 LO YALISM IN NE W YORK [126

Shortly after the issue of the Declaration of Independence
the Convention, as has been shown, had defined treason and
affixed to it the penalty of death. But as yet there were no
courts to try suspected traitors, and it was not deemed wise
to entrust such duties to committees. For this reason many
who were suspected or accused of treason " escaped with
impunity." To meet the emergency the Convention re
solved, March 31, 1/77, that all suspected traitors should be
tried " by martial law," and, " if found guilty, should suffer
death or other punishment at the discretion of a general
court-martial of the continental army," provided, however,
that no sentence should be executed till approved by the
legislature.1

Trials by court-martial soon began.2 The Convention, on
April 1 8, 1777, ordered that loyalists in Albany, Orange,
Dutchess and Ulster counties should be tried in this manner,
and instructed the county committees to furnish evidence.3
On April 29 the Convention approved three death sentences
against loyalist spies, but later commuted one 4 On May 3 a
court-martial sentenced fourteen to death, one to imprison
ment during the war and acquitted five. Of the fourteen
the Convention ordered General George Clinton to execute
all but two.5 When commissioners were sent out to sup
press loyalist outbreaks the Convention ordered court-mar
tials to be organized on the spot, as in Albany county and
on Livingston manor.6 Of seventeen loyalists tried thus at
Fort Montgomery, all were released by the Convention but
two.7 By order of May 12 authority was given to the coun
cil of safety or to the governor to pardon loyalists who were
under the death sentence.8 Executions at the hands of

1 your. ofProv. Conv., i, 856-857, 859; cf. ibid., 898. * Ibid., 884.

3 Ibid., 889. * Ibid., 904-905. 5 Ibid., 908-909.

• Ibid., 919. T Ibid., 922-926, 929. 8 Ibid., 928.

I2;] COMMISSIONERS ON LOYALISTS

courts-martial continued,1 recantations and pardons, how
ever, being frequent. Imprisonment, branding on the hand,
and fines ranging from $15 to $100 or more were common
forms of punishment, and they were usually approved by
the legislative power.3

On May 29, 1/77, John Jay reported a plan for the estab
lishment of "courts of oyer and terminer and general jail
delivery," for the trial of cases of treason, insurrection, un
lawful congregations, false allegiance, riots and other crimes.3
"To awe the disaffected," on September I, such a court was
ordered held in Tryon county.4 But the prevailing method
of trying loyalists charged with treason continued to be by
court martial.

Meanwhile the commissioners on loyalists were continu
ally busy. They moved from place to place,5 and with
their armed forces6 were occupied in discovering and arrest
ing domestic enemies. Cases of treason were turned over
to courts martial, but those who were guilty of less heinous
offenses were tried, released, imprisoned, fined, forced to
give parole or bond, or compelled to take the oath of alle
giance. Since many took the oath of allegiance only to
avoid punishment, and still remained hostile at heart,
the council of safety resolved that those guilty of violating
the oath be " deemed guilty of felony without benefit of
clergy."7 It was also decided to permit deserters from the

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv. i, 969-970, 971-972, 974, 983.

* Ibid., 971-972. Other proofs of the death penalty are found in Revolutionary
Reminiscences, 131-135, 199; JourlofProv. Conv.,\,<)io, 912, 1085-1086; Jones,
Hist, of N. Y., i, 6 1, note I; Dawson, Westchcster Co., 165, note I; Thatcher
Mil. Jour., 79, 99, 409; Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 26-38; Public Papers of
George Clinton, \, 391, 580, 584.

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 922-926, 929.

* Jour, of Prov. Cong., \, 1053. * Ibid., 1030, 1034.
*Ibid.,%72, 1030, 1045. * Ibid., 1040.

128 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 2 g

British to take the oath,1 but since, in spite of promises of
of pardon, many of the loyalists clung to the British, and
their families were only a burden to the state, every district
committee was empowered to send the " families of traitors
and rebels, with provisions, wearing apparel and bedding, to
them.'" Some individual loyalists were treated in like
manner.1

It was felt to be especially necessary to suppress domestic
foes before coping with Burgoyne, who was coming down from
the north. From every side loyalists were joining him. Be
lieving that many could be reclaimed, the commander of the
northern army was authorized to pardon all who surrendered
and took an oath of allegiance before October I, 1777.*
This was looked upon as a wise, humane act, but compara
tively few loyalists gave heed to the call.

The first month of 1778 saw an effort made for the ap
pointment of a third " committee for detecting and defeating
conspiracies,"5 but it was not until April 3, 1778, that it was
actually created.6 The powers of the committee were renewed
from time to time until August 30, I78i.7 This board was
larger, and it was in existence longer, than either of the two
former ones.8 It met for the first time April 13, and began
work at once. By this time methods of procedure and
forms of punishment had been well established by prece
dent or law. As formerly, a company of rangers was em-

1 Jour, of Prov. Cong., i, 1050. * Ibid.. 1078.

3 lbid.t 1093. * Ibid., 1040; cf. ibid., 1005, 1006-1011.

5 Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly, i, 38, 39, 41, 45.

6 your, of Assemb., i, 106, 107.

7 Ibid., ii, 21, 24. 25, 27, 28, 51, 53, iii, 22, 29, 30, 33, 36, 41, 47, 117. Cf.
Laws of N. Y., i, 257. MS. Min. of Comsrs., ii, 89-90, and June 30, 1780 (no
page).

8 Ibid., i., I. John McClung, James W. Master, Cornelius Humphrey, Wil
liam Willis, P. N. Wynkoop, Samuel Stringer, Jeremiah Rensselaer, Matthew
Vescher, Isaac D. Fonda, John M. Beekman, Hugh Mitchell and Stewart Dean.

I2Q]

COMMISSIONERS ON LO YALISTS

ployed to assist in its work.1 Money was supplied by the
state.2 A clerk was appointed and correspondence was car
ried on constantly with the other committees throughout the
state, with the legislature and with the governor.3 This
committee took cognizance of robberies,4 counterfeiting5
and murder,6 as well as of toryism ; it acted under all the laws
which applied to former committees, and enjoyed all their
privileges. Most of the sessions of this body were held at
Albany. Beginning in 1778, the legislature passed a series
of acts regulating the treatment of loyalists.7

The first work of the committee was to try the prisoners
in the various county jails. The district committees were
asked to furnish evidence against them, and the committees
of Tryon and Charlotte counties were invited to meet with
the general committee. Altogether over a thousand loyal
ists were tried and sentenced during the three years' exist
ence of this board of commissioners. The charges against
them ranged from mere suspicion to the gravest treason. In
a single month, April, 1778, one hundred and fifty-five cases
were heard — most of the parties being accused of having
been with the British. The penalties were far from uniform;
over six hundred were released on bail, varying from £4.0 to

1 MS. Min. of Comsrs., i, 35, 106.

2 Ibid., i, i, 50, ii, 89-90. The State Treasurer's Book shows that ^55,789 was
paid to these committees from 1777 to 1781 — ^6,857 in 1777, ^"28,430 in 1778,
^9,946 in 1779, and ^10,556 in 1781, — or about $139,500.

8/^., i, 27.

* Ibid., 74, 77, 78, 90, 95, etc. * Ibid., 223, 224.

6 Ibid., 71, 74. The legislature even ordered the committee to care for the
poor, and to send the families of tories who were with the British to join them.
Ibid., 282.

1 your. ofAssemb., i, 90, 92, etc. Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 17, 22, 26, etc.
On October 27, 1778, the Assembly passed an act which offered rewards varying
from $300 to #1,200 each for the arrest of fourteen dangerous loyalists. Jour.
of Assemb., ii, 26.

130

LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

<^5,ooo;1 some were closely confined;2 a few were freed on
promise of good behavior ; and many were dismissed upon
taking an oath of allegiance.3

After July, 1778, the oath of allegiance was made the
supreme test. Many loyalists stubbornly refused to take it —
about forty in July of 1779 alone. Most of them were former
royal officers, lawyers, physicians and merchants.4 If violent
and abusive, they were put in close confinement ; if moder
ate, they were sent to the British.5 Rather than leave their
homes, not a few recanted.6 Some of the obnoxious, who
had bad records behind them, were not permitted to take the
oath, even though they petitioned for it.7 These professed
loyalists were used also to effect exchanges.8 It was not
uncommon for the neighbors of a loyalist to petition that he
might be paroled instead of banished.9 As late as 1782
the loyalists renounced allegiance to king George III and
pledged their faith to the state of New York. Since the
committee was not then in session,10 the oaths were taken in

aln 1778 six were released on ^40 bail, twenty on ^50, one hundred and
three on ^100, eighteen on ,£200, one on ^250, nine on ^500, and one on ^"1000.
In 1779 two were put on ^50 bail, thirty-six on ^100, two on ^150, twenty-five
on £200, one on ^400, one on £300, sixteen on ^"500, one on ^600, four on ^1000,
and three on ^"5000. In 1780 one hundred and fifty were forced to secure ^100
bail, thirty-one £200, one ^400, sixteen .£500, and three ^"1000.

2 In 1778 about seventy-five were imprisoned, the next year the number sent to
jail was nearly eighty, and in 1780 perhaps fifty were committed to close confine
ment.

3 In 1778 sixty-two were released upon taking the oath of allegiance. The num
ber in 1779 was only about forty, and in 1780 about fifty. MS. Min. of Comsrs.,
i, 240, has a copy of an oath signed by twenty loyalists. On page 242 there is
another oath signed by sixteen.

4 MS. Min. of Comsrs., i, 108. See list given there.

* Ibid., 108, 117, 122, 123, 124. * Ibid., 122. ^ Ibid., 127, 128.

8 Ibid., 158, 172, 176; Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y.y i, 43.

9 MS. Min. of Comsrs., \, 210-211.

10 The commissioners were authorized to act till the war was over, but the war
really closed in 1781.

j 3 i ] COMMISSIONERS ON LO YALIS TS r 3 x

the presence of a justice of the peace.1 As the war drew to
a close and it became apparent that the colonies would gain
their independence, many a loyalist, whose natural conserva
tism, principles of loyalism, religion, material interests or
hope of reward had led him to champion the royal side, was
converted to the American cause. No doubt many of these
changes were sincere, but others were prompted solely by
base and selfish motives.2

The Declaration of Independence of itself made no change
in the county committees save to increase their power,3 and
after the organization of the state government they were still
continued. They were uniform in authority and procedure, but
in nothing else. They often acted as county governments,
while they continued to be vital parts of the inquisitorial
machine. In organization they remained about the same
as in 1/75 and 1776. They had their presidents, clerks,
doorkeepers, treasurers, and could control the militia.
They received instructions from the legislature, conven
tion, committee or council of safety, or commissioners on
loyalists.* In turn they gave orders to local bodies. Both
county and district committees were elected by the people,
but in case they neglected to choose them, superior bodies
were ordered to appoint them.5 The expenses of these com
mittees were paid by the state.6 Sub-committees were ap
pointed for special work, like carrying on correspondence.7
Until the first committee was appointed, in September, 1 776, to

1 MS. Min. of Comsrs., i, 240.

3 Cf. Rivingtoris Royal Gazette, July 7, 1779, which has a "hit" on loyalists
who changed from one side to the other.
1 Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., 5,462-466.
* Cf. Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1413, 1539, ii, 339.

5 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 1096.

6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., 1458-1459, 5th ser., i, 1413.
T Cf. Proceedings of Alb. Co. Com., \, 1 7.

1 3 2 LO YALISM IN NE W YORK [ i 3 2

have general charge of the loyalists, the county committees
were kept unusually busy. When in doubt about what
course to pursue, the superior bodies were consulted,1 and
these could always veto the acts of the local boards.* In
fact, the county committees had power only to arrest loyal
ists and institute preliminary hearings.

In the five southern counties the committees disappeared
with the British occupation, and were never revived. In the
northern counties they continued after July 4, 1776, but were
overshadowed by the various state boards of commissioners.
When an efficient civil government, both state and local,
was established, the county committees gradually disappeared.
The records of their proceedings after the close of 1776 are
very meagre. The Albany county committee, however, was
kept rather busy in counteracting the " desperate designs "
and the " tory plots" which were being unearthed continu
ally.3 The jails were full, and many loyalists were sent to
Connecticut." So overworked was this committee that the
special committee sent to help General Schuyler was ordered
to co-operate with it in suppressing the " disaffected."6
Troops had to be used to quell them.6 It was reported in
1777 that the loyalists took a sacred oath to remain neutral
till the British arrived. Many were " wavering in their prin
ciples." On Livingston manor they outnumbered the
whigs three to one.7 Coxsackie, Cattskill, Lunenberg,
Groetenboght, Kings and Helleberg districts were especially

1 Jour. ofProv. Conv., i, 890-891, ii, 497: Am.Archs., 5th ser.,i, 1146, 1408,
1484, 1523.

*Ibid., 1453, i472-*473-

1 jfour. of Prov. Conv., i, 666, 671, 694; Am. Archs.,zfi\ ser., i, 338, 357, 500,
888, ii, 1143, 1169, 1206.

• Ibid., i, 888, 889.

6 Ibid., iii, 231, 266; jour, of Prov. Conv.,\, 671, 688, 694.

* Ibid., 666,671, 706.

7 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 231, 266; Jour, of Prov. Conv., i. 671, 706.

133] COMMISSIONERS ON LO YALIS TS 1 3 3

disaffected.1 The slaves could not be trusted and the In
dians were feared.2 Parties were joining the British all the
time.8 The people were afraid to molest them.* The county
chairman complained that it was better to be a tory than a
whig, since tories were treated so leniently.5

The committees in Charlotte and Cumberland counties were
not very active. In the former county there were loyalists on
Onion river, at Skeenesborough and about Crown Point, but
little more was done than to proclaim them as public ene
mies.6 The few cases tried in the latter county were by
jury, with appeals to neighboring or higher bodies.7 The
tories in Dutchess county, the hot-bed of " dangerous insur
rection," disarmed the whigs and awed the committee.
That body told the Convention that it would take a standing
army to enforce the acts of Congress.8 Cortland manor was
very disaffected ; the county militia could not be trusted,
whig officers feared for their lives, drafting was impossible,
and New Hampshire and Connecticut troops had to be
called in.9 The inactivity of the district and county com
mittees in Dutchess county was severely denounced.10

Orange county continued under General Heath. Some
loyalist officers fled to the British, others were publicly ex
posed, and a few were sent to the committee of safety.11

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 694-695, 706, 707.

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 266, 574-575.

1 Ibid., 586. * Ibid., 1076.

5 Ibid., 574-575; jfour. of Prov. Conv., i, 890-891.

6 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 128, 239, 358, 488.

I Ibid., ii, 216-219. « Ibid., i, 1408, 1413.

9 Ibid., 1404, 1408, ii, 1026, iii, 205, 238, 239; your, of Prov. Conv.,\, 654,666,
757> 75^> 766; MS. Revolutionary Papers, vi, 359.

10 Am. Archs., 5»h ser., ii, 352.

II Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 648, 667, 688, 719; Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 1169;
Cal. N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 351; Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 290.

134 L ° VALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 3 4

The committee of Tryon county had a hard role to play. It
permitted some tories to return and treated others leniently,
though they were constantly guarded.1 Ulster county was
comparatively free from loyalists. The Claverack committee,
however, petitioned the Convention in 1777 for a company
of rangers "to quell the disaffected."2 The committee in
Westchester county was constantly occupied.8 The people
were badly disaffected and the harshest measures were taken
to render them harmless/

Thus it appears that after 1 776 the local committees, though
still in existence in the counties not held by the British and
occupied by them until the war closed, gradually waned in
their powers and activity. They were the most effective as
factors in dealing with loyalism when centralized power was
weak, when laws and precedents remained to be made, and
when loyalists were rendered harmless only through the activ
ity of local patriotic sentiment as expressed in an organized
committee. But as a strong state government was formed
and laws were passed to deal with the tories, and general
committees were created to enforce the laws, the powers of
the local committees were gradually absorbed by the superior
bodies. With the full establishment of civil government and
the opening of courts, both state and local committees dis
appear.

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 132, ii, 247, 249, iii, 228-229, 526; your, of Prov.
Conv., i, 663.

* Ibid., 898; Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 125, 791, 1079, 1113, 1146, 1404, 1405,
1518, ii, 688, iii, 1046.

* Ibid., i, 354, 855, 1411, 1412, 1443, 1444, 1447, 1448, 1454, 1456, 1523, 1526,
ii, 597-599. 683, 1523, 1526.

'Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 337, 355, 626, 1030, 1556, ii, 258, 310, 373, 384, 597-
599, 829,841, 845, 854, 963; your, of Prov. Conv., i, 670, 766-767.

CHAPTER VII

CONFISCATION AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF LOYALISTS

THE idea of confiscating the property of the loyalists was
a growth. It developed with the conviction that they were
traitors, and was intended to be both a retribution and a
punishment. It was a blow at individuals rather than at a
cause or a party. Aside from the wanton fury of mobs,
there was at first a decided effort made to preserve loyalist
property. When the Provincial Congress ordered loyalists
to be disarmed, great care was taken to have the arms ap
praised and marked, so that they, or their value, could be re
turned at the close of the war.1 Washington caused the
dangerous tories on Long Island to be removed, but took
pains to preserve their property.2 When the Albany county
committee authorized the arrest of Sir John Johnson, instruc
tions were given to seize all military stores, but not to injure
his property. Even his papers were not to be molested.3
But after his flight, Colonel Dayton, acting on his own re
sponsibility, sacked Johnson Hall and appropriated " his
cattle, his negroes, his horses, hogs, sheep and utensils of
husbandry."4 In the Continental Congress a resolution to
retaliate so far as possible for the seizure of American ves
sels by confiscations was tabled.6 But as time passed the

1 Min. ofProv. Cong., iii, 73-76, Sept. 16, 1775; Am. Arc/is., 4th ser., v, 1638,
1646, iv, 1628-1629.

a Ibid., 5th ser., i, 1501, August 12, 1775; cf.ibid., 4th ser., v, 1696.
* Ibid., vi, 642. 4 Jones, Hut. of N. Y., i, 76.

6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 1696.

135] '35

136

LOYALIST IN NEW YORK

policy adopted in this matter became more severe, until all
the property of loyalists, personal and real, was confiscated
and sold for the benefit of the state.

In the confiscation of property England herself set the
example. In 1775 parliament ordered all American ships
and cargoes on the high seas to be seized and confiscated.1
Upon the arrival of Howe at New York in 1776 confiscations
were made on Staten Island,2 Long Island3 and Manhattan
Island.4 Again and again the loyalists were promised the
estates of their rebellious brothers after the war was over.5
At first only movable property was taken, but later real
estate as well.6 These acts, together with the boastings and
threats of the loyalists, gave the revolutionists ample occa
sion, if not justification, for their conduct.

The first act implying confiscation in New York was passed
August 3, 1775. It provided that those who supplied the
British should be disarmed and pay double the value of the
supplies. A denial of the authority of any revolutionary
body should entail the loss of arms. Those who enlisted or
armed themselves " against the liberties of America," should
be " confined in safe custody," and both their real and
personal property should be turned over to a person ap
pointed by the nearest committee to be held in trust.7 Many
arms were thus confiscated from the loyalists and properly
recorded.8 This act was taken as authority for more sweep-

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 843. 16 Geo. Ill, c. 5. Cf. ibid., 1696.

2 Ibid., 5th ser., ii, 325. * Ibid., 325, 506.

4 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 692.

5 Ibid., 680; Am. Archs., 4th ser., v, 1473, vi, 1032, 5th ser., i, 1237.

' Docs. rel. to A7. Y. Col. Hist.,\u\, 692; Am. Archs., 5th ser., 11,325; cf.
Memoirs of L. I. Hist. Soc., iii, 96, appendix.

1 Min.ofProv. Cong., ii, 314-319.

8 Ibid., iii, 113-1 14, 1 16-117. New York anticipated the Continental Congress
by five months in this procedure. Almonds Remembrancer, i, 221-223. In New
York city 58 loyalists were deprived of guns, pistols, cutlasses, swords and ammu
nition appraised at £203 in 1775. Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS., i, 259-261.

! 3 7 ] CONFISCA TION AND SALE OF PR OPER TY T 3 7

ing confiscations, where the exigencies of the case seemed to
demand it. To make good the bonds of escaped tories, their
estates were seized.1 In Albany county loyalists' property
was sold to pay for the military service they should have
rendered.2 The Provincial Congress ordered two sloops on
the Hudson, used by the "disaffected," to be captured.
Dobb's sloop was burned, and Berg's sloop was sold at ven-
due for the benefit of Congress.3 The New York committee
proposed to declare all goods imported in violation of the
association to be forfeited.4 In August, 1776, the Conven
tion used the houses of the chief loyalists in New York city
as hospitals.5 Such were the early examples of the appro
priation and confiscation of loyalist property.

Treason was defined by the resolutions of the Continental
Congress of June 24, \Tj6f while at the same time it was
declared that all the property of those who adhered to the
king or abetted him in his unjust war against the states should
be liable to seizure.7 These resolutions were supplemented
some weeks later by the acts of the New York Convention, ex
plaining allegiance, citizenship and treason. The status of
the loyalists having been clearly defined, and all doubts about
the political issues removed, New York was soon ready to
take the necessary legal steps to supplement the inquisitorial

1 Dawson, Westchcster Co., 174-177.

* Min. of Alb. Com. Co., i, 389.

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iii, 569, 900, 907,908, 910, 1016, 1267, 1300, 1303.

4 Ibid., iv, 692. As early as July II, 1775, the New York committee named a
sub-committee of six to attend to " the sale of two bales and two trunks of goods,
the property of Benjamin Booth, imported in the ship Lady Gage . . . from London
in Dec. last; also to attend the sale of boxes and goods, the property of Grey and
Blakie." Am. Archs., 4th ser., ii, 1645.

5 Ibid., 5th ser,, i, 1499.

6 Am. Archs., 4th ser., vi, 1431, 1720; cf. Gaine's N, Y. Gazette and Weekly
Mercury, no. 1293, for a discussion of " Citizenship."

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1590, resolution of July 24, 1776.

138 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

program by sequestrating, confiscating and selling their
property in a systematic manner for the benefit of the state.1

Subsequent to July 4, 1776, confiscations became more
numerous. This was work which fell naturally to the local
committees. In Orange county large stores of household
goods and other articles, also horses and oxen, belonging to
William Bayard and other disaffected persons, were seized.2
A list of the estates of the tories was made out in Albany
county.3 In Westchester county the farms, stock, tools, crops
and furniture of loyalists were seized and sold before December
6, 1 776.* In Orange county, and no doubt elsewhere, commis
sioners were appointed to secure the " perishable effects " of
absconded tories.5 When Colonel Hitchcock took a loyal
ist's horse, the committee of safety ordered him to keep it
until the legislature took action respecting such property.6
When Thomas Barclay joined the British, the same commit
tee caused his hay, forage, stock and grain, except so much
as was necessary to support his family and slaves, to be
seized ; but it was appraised, sold and the value deposited
in the state treasury until more definite action should be
taken.7

These cases became so numerous that it was felt that some
additional administrative regulation was necessary to cover
them, hence a committee was named to report an "ordinance
for securing all estates and effects" of absconded tories.8

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1403, 1410.

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 679; Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 347.

' Ibid., 364.

4 Ibid., 364; Dawson, Westchester Co., 120; Hist. MSS. Miscl. Papers, xxxv,
397-

6 Am. Archs., 5th ser., iii, 1248. General Arnold also seized the effects of
tories at Montreal. Ibid., 4th ser., vi, 976.

6 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 679. 7 Ibid., 720-721.

8 Ibid., 730, 731-733, 755 5 Am- Archs., 5th ser., iii, 347.

f

k UNIVERSITY

!39] CONFISCATION AND SALE OF PROPERTY £39

Meanwhile the " commissioners on conspiracies " were ordered
to seize the effects, money and crops of loyalists who broke
their paroles.1 The ordinance, as reported by the committee,
on February 22, 1 777, and adopted, provided that six commis
sioners should be ordered to sell the personal property of
loyalists who had gone to the British and to keep the money
till orders were received from the state legislature.2 Local
committees were instructed to prepare lists of such property.8

Finally, on March 6, 1777, the Convention took decisive
action. Three paid commissioners of sequestration, who were
continued in service for seven years, were appointed for each
of the counties except those in control of the British, and
excepting also Gloucester and Cumberland counties.* They
took an oath to perform their duties honestly, fearlessly and
impartially. Two constituted a quorum. They were au
thorized to seize all the personal property of those who
joined the British, and after ten days' notice sell it at public
vendue. The entire proceeds were to go into the state
treasury, and their expenses were to be paid by the state.
The families of loyalists were allowed to retain their wearing
apparel, the necessary household furniture, and provisions
for three months. The purpose of this measure was, by
using such property for the advantage of the new state, to
prevent it from going to waste or serving as supplies for the
enemy.5

These committees began their work at once. To make
their work more effectual the act of March 6 was soon sup
plemented by others. The Albany county commissioners
resigned, and the Convention appointed ten commissioners
to replace them.6 When the committee of Claverack district in

1 Jour, of Prov. Conv.t i, 760, 769, 777-778, 804, 810.

*Ibid.,%u. » 7^.821,827.

4 The committees for these two counties were appointed later. Ibid., 861, 907.

6 Ibid., 826. • Ibid., 956, 967, May 30, 1777.

1 40 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 40

Renslaerwyck complained that the county commissioners had
not done their duty, the council of safety ordered it to act in
their stead and with like powers.1 A new commission of two
members was created for Orange county, north of the moun
tains.' The Convention filled vacancies again and again. The
commissioners received orders from the Convention and the
legislature to appropriate the property of certain loyalists,5
to lease all lands yearly at moderate rates, giving the home
less whigs the preference;4 to sell all personal property,5 to
administer oaths to witnesses and punish them for contempt;6
to send all gold and silver to the state treasurer,7 to pass on
the validity of sales made by loyalists before their flight,8 to
suppress frauds,9 and " to enter any houses and places
wherein they shall have reason to suspect any of the goods,
chattels and effects are concealed, and to break open any
building or dig up any soil "to secure them.10 The estates
of traitors who had been executed were also put under their
jurisdiction. No private sales were allowed.11 Suspecting
that the commissioners were not doing their duty or were
over-zealous, the legislature appointed a committee of six in
1779 to inquire into the conduct of the commissioners of
Albany, Charlotte, Tryon, Dutchess, Ulster, Orange and
Westchester counties.12 So severe were the commissioners
in Westchester county that even General Putnam complained

ljour. of Prov. Conv., i, 1079. * Ibid., 1112, Jan. 8, 1778.

8 MS. Assembly Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol. 25, p. 5-7; Jour, of Prov. Conv.,
\, 826, 1052.

* Ibid., 856, 883, 899, 930. April 17, 1780, John Younglove and George Palmer
reported 26 loyalist farms rented at a total income of £551, and n farms for
^"638 in 1779. MS. Audited Accounts A, in Surveyor General's Office.

6 Jour, of Prov. Conv., i, 872. 6 Ibid., 1056, Nov. 10, 1777.

T Ibid., 1090, 1 1 12. 8 Ibid., 930. 9 Ibid.. 930. I0 Ibid., 1092.

11 Jour. ofN. Y. Assemb. (1777), 87, 92, 93, 99.

" Ibid., iii, 19, 40, 71, 79.

1 4 1 ] CONHSCA TICN AND SALE O p PR OPER TY l 4 £

of their conduct.1 These commissioners were kept busy
until after the war closed, and in order to hasten their work,
the state gave them a bonus of ten per cent, on all sales made
after March 11, 1784.*

The most complete minutes of the sales now accessible are
for Dutchess county, and will serve as a sample of what was
done in all the counties. The commissioners for that county
sold the personal estate of Beverly Robinson on April 21,
1777. It consisted of live stock, farm implements, house
hold articles, barn and cellar fixtures, grain, fruits, hay, cloth
ing, books and numerous other articles, which were sold for
£68o.3 Further confiscations and sales followed. At Fred-
ericksburg the personal effects of twenty-six loyalists sold
for £1,637. In Paulding's precinct £2,133 was realized from
the property of twenty loyalists. In Southeast precinct the
property of eighteen loyalists brought £800. In Rumbout
precinct the personal estates of thirty-four loyalists were
disposed of for £2,985. The personal effects of fourteen
Poughkeepsie loyalists brought £1,630, and £4,906 was se
cured from thirty-six loyalists in Charlotte precinct. In
Rhinebeck precinct £3,762 was raised from the personal
possessions of forty-two loyalists, while Beekman's precinct
returned £1,017 from the belongings of nine loyalists, and
Northeast precinct reported £15,144 from sixty-seven loyal
ists. Between 1777 and 1780 the sum of £24,694 was
realized from the sale of the personal property of 262
loyalists in the county.4 By November 22, 1781, this

ljour. of Prov. Conv., i, 1031, Aug. 15, 1777.

a Laws of N. K, i, 232.

' MS. The Personal Estate of Beverly Robinson, etc., of 1 16 pages, in the library
of N. Y. State. The book seems to have been larger, because there are references
to page 119.

1 The MS. The Personal Instate of Beverly Robinson, etc., has in it all the names
of the loyalists whose estates were confiscated, and an itemized account of the
sales.

1 42 L O YALfSM IN NE W YORK [ ! 42

amount had increased to £75,352,' and by May, 1783, the
total of £99,771 had been paid to the state treasurer from
Dutchess county.2

This record was repeated in most of the other counties.
From June 30, 1777, to July, 1781, the commissioners for
Ulster county collected £32,082.' Tryon county raised
£27,815 between August 31, 1777, and July, 1781.* The
sales in Westchester county during the period from July i,

1777, till May, 1784, amounted to £43,88o.5 The sum of
£18,494 was realized in Albany county between March 14,

1778, and May, 1782.* Only £360 was turned into the
treasury between August 29, 1778, and February, 1779, from
Charlotte county.7 The Orange county commissioners sold
personal property to the value of £38,193 between Septem-
30, 1778, and March, I783.8 The personal possessions se
questrated and sold in seven counties brought to the state
treasury £260,595.

Of sales of personal property there are no returns before
1783 from the strongholds of loyalism, New York city, Long
Island and Staten Island, for the very sufficient reason that
these places were till that time in the possession of the British.
After the treaty of peace and the evacuation of these regions,
the zeal for discovering and selling this class of property had
abated. Loyalists who chose to remain under the new order
of things were not molested, while most of those who emi
grated either removed or sold their personal effects. It
seems, however, from petitions which were sent to England
asking for compensation for losses, that after the evacuation

1MS. State Treasurer's Book, 1775-1796, p. 77.

1 Ledger from 1775 to 1793. in State Comptroller's office, p. 106, 199.

*Ibid.t 1 06. * Ibid., 107. 6 Ibid., 107, 172.

6 Old Ledger of State Treasurer from 1775 to 1793, in comptroller's office, 131,

136.

"* Ibid., 150. *Ibid.t 146; cf. State Treasurer's Book for 1775-1796.

143] CONFISCATION AND SALE OF PROPERTY ^3

of southern New York some of the loyalists did lose their
personal property.1 The report made to the English com
missioners on loyalists' claims by E. Hardy, the agent sent
to New York, March 5, 1784, gave the names of fourteen
loyalists from New York city who requested compensation
for an aggregate loss in personal property of ;£i5,oo6.2 No
doubt loyalists on Long Island and Staten Island suffered
similar losses.3 Using these known figures as the basis
for a conservative estimate of the total amount of money
realized by the state from the sale of this class of prop
erty, it can be safely said that the sum was ,£300,000. The
loss to the loyalists, however, would at least approximate
£6oo,ooo.4

It is very difficult to convert these sums into hard
money, because of the great fluctuations in the value of cur
rency. When the sales began in 1777 bills of credit could
be exchanged easily for specie at a small premium,5 but by
March 15, 1780, the ratio between paper money and coin

1 William Axtell had his home and furniture on Broadway sold. Sabine, 198.
The personal property of Andrew Elliott in Bowery Lane was sold at auction Sept.
1783. Ibid., 404. In this same year the furniture of John Tabor Kempe was
sold in New York city. Ibid., 601.

2 MS. Transcript of . . the Books and Papers of ... the American Loyalists,
vol. I, 369-371. James Houghston, Uriah Wright, Tertullus Dickinson, Thomas
Spragg, Samuel Dickinson, Joshua Curry, Nathan Whitney, James Dickinson,
Jesse Sturges, Ezekiel Welton, Robert Thome, Jesse Powell, Simon La Roy and
Joshua Gidney.

3 Jesse Oaks, of Suffolk co., reported a loss of $1,485, and Capt. Samuel Hallett,
of Hallett's Cove, estimated his loss at $10,730.

4 This estimate is based on the fact that the loyalists' claims for losses were
about double the amounts for which their property sold.

* At the outbreak of the revolution $6 in specie was worth only $7.50 in bills.
This ratio lasted until the fall of 1777. Hart, Hist, of Paper Money in Am. Cols.;
Gouge, Paper Money and Banking in the U. S., 26. From 1775 to 1781 New
York issued ^464,000 in paper money, but most of it was successfully redeemed
by taxation.

! 44 L ° YALTSM IN NE W YORK [ j 44

was 40 to i.1 After 1781, however, efforts were made to
have payments for forfeited property made in gold or silver,
or the equivalent in currency.2 The monetary standard
used by New York in issuing bills of credit was the Spanish
silver dollar.3 Since a pound in currency was equal to
$2.50, the sums given above can easily be reduced to dol
lars.4 By assuming that the sales made in 1777 and those
made after 1781 were for specie, or its equivalent in currency,
the amount of standard money realized from these sales was
nearly $222,ooo.5 Taking the legal rate of exchange of
June, 1778, which was 2.6 to I, as an average for the year,
the sales of that year amounted to $56,350 in Spanish silver.
In June, 1779, the ratio was 13 to I, and, by using that as
the average for the year, the state received but $2,060 in
hard money. The ratio for 1780 and 1 781 was about 40 to
i, and would reduce the $315,000, which was received for
loyalist property, to a little less than $8,000. The total in
come from the sale of confiscated personal effects, reduced
to Spanish silver dollars, would be almost $39O,ooo.6 This

1 The scale of the depreciation of paper money was fixed by law in New York.
Laws of N. Y., i, 261, 377, 328; Hickcox, A'. Y. Bills of Credit, 98; Phillips,
Hist. Acct. of Paper Cur., i, 33.

2 Laws ofN. Y., i, 378.

3 The Spanish silver dollar had in it in 1772 417 grains. Chalmers, Hist,
of Cur. in the Br. Cols., 392.

4 At this ratio the total amount realized, for instance, from the sale of seques
trated personal property in Dutchess county, would be nearly $250,000, while the
total loss in the state, from the loyalists' standpoint, would be about $1,500,000.

5 From Trycn, Ulster, Dutchess and Westchester counties ^£27,457 was received
in 1777, and from Westchester, Albany, Orange and Dutchess counties ,£61,338
after 1781.

6 Since coin became very plentiful in the colonies after 1 780, according to
Phillips, Hist. Account of Paper Currency, ii, 173, it is possible that some of the
property which was purchased was paid for in hard money. In that case this sum
should be increased. These estimates are based upon the supposition that the pay
ments were all made in depreciated currency. Prices of the time indicate the low

! 4 5 ] CONFISCA TION AND SA LE OF PR OPER TV j 4 5

sum was turned into the treasury of the state and used to
meet the expenses of war. If translated into bullion values
of the present day these figures would not he changed very
materially.1

Although efforts were made after 1781 to have all busi
ness in the state transacted on a specie basis, it was not until
the Act of May 12, 1784, was passed that the relative value
of the various kinds of money was determined. Gold and
silver were to be accepted at their " legal and current
values." The bills of credit of New York and the conti
nental paper money were to be taken at the rate of one
silver dollar for $120 in currency. Other special certificates
and warrants were to be received on more favorable terms.2

The office of commissioner of sequestration, created March
6, 1777, was abolished May 12, 1784, and orders were given
to the commissioners to render an account of their transac
tions and to turn all moneys and records over to the state.
Their powers and duties then devolved on the commission
ers of forfeiture. They were released from all obligations
and were guaranteed protection against suits for damage.3
So thoroughly had their work been done during the seven
years of their existence that by 1784 comparatively little
confiscated personal property remained to be sold.

The confiscation and sale of the personal property of
loyalists was followed by a like disposition of their real
estate. This course was followed partly in response to pop
ular clamor. Between August 3, 1775 and October 22,

value of paper money. A pair of trousers sold for ^35, a pair of boots for ^17,
a grindstone for £260, a cow for ^164, a negro for ^260, a bed for ,£76, a look
ing glass for £21, and an ox -cart for ^144.

1 Cf. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the Ant. Rev. ii, 36; Bolles,
Finan. Hist, of U. S., i, 31 ; A pound " sterling " in this chapter does not mean
British money, but simply the standard money of the colony, or $2.50.

2 Laws of N. Y.t i, 740-741. * Hreenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 45, 156, 159, 279.

1 46 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 4$

1779, the houses and lands of pronounced loyalists were
seized and held in trust by the state.1 The products from
these estates were sold, and the rents went into the state
treasury. The question of what should finally be done with
forfeited lands was raised as early as I776.2 On October 15,
1778, James Jay reported in the New York assembly the
need of " an act to confiscate and make sale of all real and
personal estates of such inhabitants and others who have
forfeited the same to the state."3 A bill was reported Feb
ruary 26, 1779, declaring "the sovereignty of the people of
this state " over all such possessions.4 It was passed, but the
council of revision declared it to be repugnant to the " plain
and immutable laws of justice," because it deprived inhabi
tants "of their just rights" and put the possibility of the
"grossest oppression" in the hands of the commissioners.
They objected to the punishment of persons without trial by
jury, and the indictment of absentees for high treason. They
complained that there was no provision for the return of
property to the innocent, no definite instructions to the com
missioners, no provision for debts due citizens of New York
by the loyalists, and that even persons who were dead when
the act was passed were declared guilty of high treason and
a decree of confiscation was issued against their property.5

A new bill was then prepared and became a law, Oc
tober 22, I779-6 The act declared that fifty-nine per
sons were ipso facto guilty of felony ; that they should
be attainted and their property forfeited to the state;

1This was the general rule. There were exceptions. Dec. 10, 1776, the com
mittee of safety ordered part of the estate of Thomas H. Barclay sold. It was
sold for £1,603 Jan. 2, 1777. No doubt there were other cases. MS. A&emb.
Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol. 27, p. 35; MS. Transcript . . of the Books and
Papers of . . the American Loyalists, vol. 17, p. 38.

'MS. Revolutionary Papers, v, 143, 211.

*Jour. of Assemb., ii, 7, 40, 46, 58, 64, 67, 74, 78, 79, 81.

* Ibid., 83, 85, 98. * Ibid., 99, IO2-IO6. * Ibid., iii, 19-29, 57, 80.

147] CONFISCA TION AND SALE OF PR OPER TY

if found within the state, they were to be executed. The
list included two governors,1 seven councillors,2 two su
preme court justices,3 one attorney-general,4 twenty-four
" esquires " 5 and two of their sons,6 one mayor of New York
city, 7 two knights,8 four gentlemen,9 nine merchants,10 one
minister,11 one farmer I2 and three women.13 They were scat
tered over eleven counties.14 Further, the act directed that
the grand jurors of any supreme court or courts of oyer and
terminer, or " general and quarter sessions of the peace,"
were empowered, on the oath of one credible witness that
any person dead or alive was guilty of loyalism, to bring in an
indictment against such person.15 If he failed to appear after

I Dunmore and Tryon.

'John Watts, Oliver De Lancey, Hugh Wallace, Henry White, John Harris
Cruger, William Axtell and Roger Morris.
8 George Duncan Ludlow and Thomas Jones.

4 John Tabor Kempe.

5 William Bayard, Robert Bayard, James De Lancey of New York city, Guy
Johnson, Daniel Glaus, John Butler, Frederick Philipse, James De Lancey of
Westchester, David Golden, Daniel Kissam, Sr., Gabriel Ludlow, Philip Skeene,
Benjamin Seaman, Ghristopher Billop, Beverly Robinson, Beverly Robinson, Jr.,
Malcom Morrison, Abraham C. Guyler, Peter Dubois, Thomas H. Barclay, John
Rapalje, George Muirson, Richard Floyd and Parker Wickham.

6 Andrew P. Skeene and Frederick Philipse.
'David Matthews.

8 Sir John Johnson and Sir Henry Clinton.

9 Robert Kane, Robert Leake, Edward Jessup and Ebenezer Jessup.

10 James Jauncey, George Folliot, Thomas White, William McAdam, Isaac Low,
Miles Sherbrook, Alexander Wallace, John Weatherhead and Henry Lloyd.

II Gharles Inglis.

13 John Joost Herkimer.

18 Mrs. Charles Inglis, Mrs. Susannah Robinson and Mrs. Mary Morris.

14 Orange, Cumberland and Gloucester were omitted.

16 The sheriff of Westchester county called loyalists indicted for high treason to
appear to traverse it or have their estates confiscated, August 25, 1783. They failed
to appear, and their estates were forfeited. MS. Transcript of . . Books and
Papers of . . . American Loyalists, i, 336.

1 48 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 48

four weeks' advertising in the newspapers, he was to be de
clared guilty, and to forfeit all his property. Those who were
pardoned, or who had taken the oath of allegiance, were not
included. Such of the accused as were brought to the bar
should have a fair trial. High treason in this act was inter
preted to mean all it included in English law. In addition,
persons in territory not in possession of the British on July
9, 1776, who voluntarily joined the enemy, or who broke
paroles and went over to the British, or who were allowed
to go to the British on condition of returning but who failed
to observe the condition, were declared guilty of high
treason. Those who lived in southern New York solely to
protect their property, and did not aid the enemy, were ex
empt. The confiscation of property should not prevent the
trial and execution of traitors. All conveyances of property
by traitors after July 9, 1776, were presumed to be fraudu
lent. All lands and rents of the crown were likewise de
clared forfeited.1

This act of attainder was passed largely through personal
spite, and in order to secure property.2 The Dutchess
county whigs, to the number of about 450, had petitioned
the legislature for harsh measures.3 The act was drawn up
by John Morin Scott and James Jay. It was opposed by
many persons for its manifest unfairness. Though passed in
1779, it did not go into complete effect until four years later.4
Then it was put into force regardless of the fifth article of
the treaty of peace.5 John Watts and James De Lancey

^reenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 26-38; Jones, Hist, of N. K, ii, 510-523; cf.
Jour. ofAssemb., iii, 112-1 14, 122, 125, 139, iv, 26, 36, 39, 47, 49, 50, 59, 61, 63,
79, 86, 88, 92, v, 25, 26.

2 Cf. Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i, 153, ii, 269-306. » Ibid., 528.

* Ibid., 530, 538; Senate Journal, 115, 148, 156, 159, 166, 202, 215; cf. Jay,
Life of Jay, i, 112-113.

5 Jones, Hist, oj N. Y., ii, 538.

1 49 ] CONFISCA TION AND SALE OF PR OPER TY r 49

went to England in May, 1775, and there remained, while
Governor Dunmore, Governor Tryon and Sir Henry Clinton
had never been anything but British subjects, yet their prop
erty was declared forfeited. All the attainted were Episco
palians.

The governor was authorized by the above act to appoint
" commissioners of forfeiture" for "the great districts of the
state." Seven were named — two for the southern district,
embracing New York city and county, Long Island and
Staten Island ; one for the middle district, including the Hud
son River counties ; one for the eastern district, taking in
Vermont and Washington county ; and three for the western
district, made up of Albany and Tryon county, and the
Mohawk valley.1 They were authorized to sell all lands and
houses confiscated and forfeited, and to grant deeds which
should be valid against all claims. The sales were, as a rule,
public, and held after due notice in the newspapers. The
commissioners might divide the estates so as to sell them
better, but the sale of parcels of over 500 acres was discour
aged. Sales were to be made in the counties where the
lands were located, though the commissioner of the middle
district was allowed to dispose of estates in New York city.2
Buyers were protected in every way and tenants were always
given preference.11 Mortgages given before the Declaration
of Independence were to be considered valid, but all issued
after that date were to be investigated before claims arising
from them were allowed. Good debts against forfeited
estates were audited and paid, and those due such estates
were collected. One-third of the purchase money must be

1 Greenleaf, Laws ofN. K., i, 127-149; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 543; cf. Laws
ofN. Y., ii, 310.

* Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 309.

3 Ibid., 53, Act of May 4, 1784; cf. Act of Nov. 24, 1784; Laws ofN. Y., i, 422,
489.

L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK

[ j 5 o

paid down and the rest within nine months. In the southern
district the commissioners were paid for their services I %
per cent, of all sales, but elsewhere they received twenty-
four shillings per day while actually employed.1 Great care
was taken to prevent their speculating in lands.2 Maps and
field books were made, records were ;kept, reports of sales
were frequently sent to the governor, and deeds were regis
tered in the office of the secretary of state or of the county
clerk. In all the districts except the southern, the commis
sioners began work before the treaty of peace, though the act
of attainder was not put immediately into execution. On
March 10, 1780, the commissioners were instructed to begin
sales at once.3 Laws were passed at frequent intervals to
regulate the traffic.4 Lands might be leased and rents were
to be collected.5 All property was appraised before being
sold.6 The office of "commissioner of forfeitures" was
abolished September i, 1788, when all the work was turned
over to the surveyor-general.7 By 1782 the state had con
fiscated loyalist property in land valued at .£500,000, hard
money.8

John Hathorn, Samuel Dodge and Daniel Graham were
appointed commissioners of forfeiture for the middle district,
but by the later act of May 12, 1784, the number was re
duced to one.9 The sale of loyalist property in that district

1 The Act of March 10, 1780, allowed them $30 a day and actual expenses,
This was in currency.

2Greenleaf, Laws of N. F., i, 127-149.

3 Laws ofA'ew York, Act of March 10, 1780.

* Ibid., i, 381-383, 422, 489, 621.

* Ibid., i, 381-383, 751. In Dutchess co. 100 cleared acres rented for ^"30 in
currency a year. fl Ibid., 753. ''Ibid., 822.

8 MS. Transcript of . . Books and Papers . . of the . . American Loyalists,
i, 39-

»Greenleaf, Laws ofN. Y., i, 26-38, 127-149.

! 5 i ] CONFISCA TION AND SALE OF PR OPER TY j 5 r

began June 15, 1780, and within a year amounted to £337,-
ooo in currency from lands forfeited by Beverly Robinson,
George Folliot and Charles Inglis.1 The large estate of
Roger Morris, amounting to 50,850 acres, was offered for sale
April 20, 1781, and by June 30, 1785, 39,100 acres were dis
posed of for about £260,000, mostly in specie or its value
in bills of credit, but it was not until 1819 that the surveyor
general declared that all was sold.2 William Bayard's estate
brought to the state £7,542 for 1722 acres.3 The surveyor
general continued the sales after 1788. From 1785 to 1808
the records are very meagre, but it is quite likely that sales
were made right along. Between 1808 and 1819 about
$10,000 worth of loyalists' property in Sullivan, Orange
and Ulster counties, forfeited by James DeLancey, Oliver
DeLancey and John Weatherhead, was sold. Altogether
$1,523,000 was received in this district in currency and
specie from the sale of loyalist real estate. The sales in
1780 and 1781 were probably in currency, while those made
later were in coin or its equivalent. On this basis the total
sum reduced to Spanish silver dollars would be $575>ooo, or
£226,400 sterling.

The three commissioners of forfeiture for the western dis
trict, John Lansing, Christopher Yates and Jeremiah Van
Rensselaer, began to sell forfeited lands May 17, 1780, and by
April 30, 1781 they had sold £477,396, or $1,193,000, worth
in paper money from the estates of thirteen loyalists.4 Be-

1 MS. N. Y. State 7'reasurer's Book, 138-145.

2 MS. Abstract of Sales of Forfeited Lands, etc., in the office of the surveyor
general; MS. Putnam Co. Lands Claimed by John Jacob Astor.

8 MS. Assembly Papers, Forfeited F^statcs, vol. 26, p. 321 ; Laws ofN. Y., i, 555.

* MS. An Account of Monies . . for Forfeited Lands . . in Assemb. Papers.
Henry White, Edward Jessup, A. C. Cuyler, Guy Johnson, James De Lancey, Rob
ert Leake, Sir John Johnson, David Golden, Daniel Glaus, James Green, Malcom
Morrison, Moses Holt and Alexander Grookshank. Simms, Frontiersmen of
N. Y., 248, 257, estimated Sir John Johnson's estate at 50,000 acres.

152 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [i$2

tween August 10, 1780 and May 9, 1781, the state treasurer
received £9,343, or $23,400, in specie or its equivalent from
the sale of the lands of four prominent loyalists.1 The act of
May 12, 1784, gave a new impetus to the sales, and soon
the estates of twenty-two loyalists were divided into small
lots and sold to several hundred persons for £328,500, or
$821,000 in hard money.2 On November 8, 1785, 243,480
acres in this district remained unsold. This land, which was
valued at £150,000, or $375,000 in standard money, was
gradually sold.:i In 1788 the legislature ordered the sur
veyor general to sell the estates of four loyalists, and sales
were made at intervals for some years.4 Converting the
total amount of sales into standard money, the sales in this
district produced about $1,250,000 or £500,000 sterling.

The three commissioners for the eastern district were re
duced by the act of May 12, 1784, to one, Alexander Web
ster. Up to that time they had sold 2,329 acres forfeited
by Oliver DeLancey, 4,067 acres forfeited by Philip and
Andrew Skeene, and 2,000 acres forfeited by Edward and
Ebenezer Jessup. In the standard money of the day these
lots were worth about $5O,ooo.5 From October 12, 1784 to

1 MS. Assembly Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol. 26,108-113; MS. N. Y. Stale
Treasurer's Book, 120. Sir John Johnson, Oliver De Lancey., Guy Johnson and
John Butler.

* 'MS. Report of Comsrs. of Forfeiture. John Butler, Sir John Johnson, Henry
White, G. Banker, Waldran Blauw, John Weatherhead, Hugh Wallace, J. Merkel,
Joshua Shell, John Brown, Duncan Cameron, Patrick Carrijan, Stephen Tuttle,
John Docksteeder, Wilson and Abels, Caleb Peck, John Watts, Robert Hoxley,
Daniel Claus, William R. Wowen and Henry Cosby.

3 MS. Assemb. Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol 26, p. 104.

4 A MS. Account Book, no. 2, in the surveyor general's officers apparently a
supplemental list of sales amounting to ^34,500, or $86,000; cf. Laws of N. Y.,
i, 828. The lands of Oliver De Lancey, James Jauncey, Goldsbrow Banyor were
ordered to be sold in 1788.

5 In 1785 Edward Jessup alone estimated his losses at ,£11,173. Can. Archs.,
(1881 ), 720; MS. Report of Sales by the Comsrs. of Forfeiture of the Eastern District,
I2th May, 1784, in Assemb. Papers, Forfeited Lands, vol. 26, pp. roo, 108-113.

I $3 ] CONFISCA TION AND SALE OF PR OPER TY

August 29, 1788, the estates remaining of these same persons,
and of John Tabor Kemp, John Rapelje, David Jones, Michael
Hofnagle and Jonathan Jones, aggregating 62,000 acres,
brought only £40,000, or $100,000, to the state.1 Later
sales probably increased this amount considerably. The
sums given above were equal to £60,000 sterling.

The tory property in the southern district could not be
touched till the British evacuated. The commissioners,
Isaac Stoutenburg and Philip Van Cortlandt, were instructed
to do nothing with property, real or personal, within the' ene
my's lines.2 The most valuable possessions of the loyalists
in the state were in this district. "Two-thirds of the prop
erty of the city of New York and the suburbs belongs to
the tories," wrote an observer.3 All the wealthy landowners
in Queens and Richmond counties were loyalists, and a few
of the richest in Kings and Suffolk counties were in the same
class. On April 6, 1784, Isaac Stoutenburg was ordered to
sell exclusively for gold or silver forfeited property in the
metropolis and Kings county to the amount of £2O,OOO.4
At that time he gave public notice of the sale of the estates
of Hugh Wallace, George Folliot, Frederick Philipse, John
Harris Cruger and others.5

From June 16, 1784 to December 24, 1787, the commis
sioners executed 339 conveyances in the city and county of
New York. The property of only twenty-six loyalists, how
ever, was sold during that time, and the amount realized was

'MS. Commissioners of Forfeiture, Eastern District, in surveyor general's
office; cf. Greenleaf, Laws of N. V., i, 276-279.

1 /#</., i, 26-38.

*Am.Arcks., 5th ser., ii, 182.

* At this time silver was valued at one hundred times the face of a paper bill.
LawsofN. Y., i, 621 ; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 501.

5 MS. Transcript . . of the Books and Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. i,
P- 345-

! c; 4 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 5 4

nearly .£200,000. James DeLancey's property alone, con
sisting of farms, and houses and lots, brought to the state
about £i 20,000. ] This was the largest sum realized from a
single individual in the district, while the smallest amount
secured was ^40, from the sale of five lots and a house and
lot belonging to John Grigg, of Kinderhook.2 The losses of
other loyalists ranged somewhere between these extremes,
but in no case did the sum realized from the sale of a loyal
ist's estate equal the amount of his claim for compensation.
The property of eight of these loyalists was sold because of
"conviction" of treason/ while the rest were "attainted."
At least five of them lived outside of the county of New
York." The petitions sent to the British government, asking

1 Jones, Hist, of N. V., ii, 544-556, says his estate sold for ,£93,769, or $234,-
200. De Lancey himself valued his estate at ,£56,782 sterling, and his annual
income at ,£1,200. MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American
Loyalists, vol. 2, p. 72, and vol. 1 1, p. 78, etc.

s MS. volume of Forfeited Estates, in the recorder's office of New York city.

3 The property of Henry White, Sr., was sold for ,£22,536. The possessions of
James Jauncey brought to the state treasury ,£8,445, but he judged his loss to be
,£12,920. MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of "the American Loyalists, vol.
II, p. 78. Only ,£8,195 was realized from the property of William Bayard, while
he estimated his loss at ,£100,000 on one occasion and ^£65,274 on another, [bid.,
vol.4 and vol. n, p. 78; cf. Can. Arc/is. (1886), p. 554, no. 154, 215. Oliver
De Lancey's houses and lots went for ^5,710, but he, like William Bayard, owned
land all over the state, and estimated his loss at from ,£60,000 to ,£78,000. Ibid., vol.
4, and vol. 1 1, p. 78. Roger Morris placed his loss at ,£61,891, whileonly ,£3,010
was secured for his property in the metropolis. Ibid. Like differences between
the sales in New York city and the loyalists' claims for losses was true in the case
of Thomas White, Waldron Blauw, Robert Bayard, Thomas Jones, John Watts,
Sr., Joshua T. D. St. Croix, Frederick Phillipse, Edward Ward, Isaac Low, John
Weatherfield, John Harris Cruger, Alexander Wallace, Joshua Gidney, Robert
McGinnis, William Axtell, James Leonard, David Matthews and Beverly Robin
son. Ibid.

4 Joshua T. D. St. Croix, Waldron Blauw, Joseph Leonard, Edward Ward, Roger
Morris, Joseph Gidney, Robert McGinnis and John Grigg,

5 Frederick Phillipse, Beverly Robinson, Roger Morris, Thomas Jones and John
Grigg.

1 5 5 ] CONFISCA TJON AND SALE OF PR OPER TY j «j 5

compensation for losses of property in New York city on ac
count of loyalty, show the names of at least eight loyalists
who were not mentioned in the records of the commission
ers, with an aggregated loss of about ,£30,000.' The Eng
lish commissioner on loyalist claims, E. Hardy, who was sent
to New York to receive testimony and make an examination,
also reported the names of fourteen loyalists, who claimed a
total loss of property worth approximately ^"14,000." The
list of compensated claims has in it the names of still other
loyalists from New York city.8 A tract of confiscated prop
erty was set aside by the commissioners of forfeiture for the
residences of the officers of the state.4 Counting in all prop
erty confiscated in this county, not less than £264,000
sterling must have been realized for the benefit of the state.
Outside of New York city the records of the sales of the
loyalists' property in the southern district are not very com
plete. The act of 1779 " attainted " loyalists in Rich
mond, Kings, Queens and Suffolk counties, and many
others were •' convicted" of treason and thus forfeited their
possessions. In Kings county the commissioners sold the

1 Benjamin Booth, Lloyd Danbury, Stephen De Lancey, David Fenton, Thomas
Hughes, Archibald Kennedy, Mrs. Dr. Magra, and Thomas Miller. MS. 7 ranscript
. . of the Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, vol. 4 and vol. 1 1, p. 78.

2 James Houghton, Uriah Wright, Tertullus Dickinson, Thomas Spragg, Joshua
Curry, Nathan Whitney, Christopher Benson, James Dickinson, Ezekiel Welton,
Robert Thome, Jesse Powell, Simon Le Roy, Joshua Gidney and Theophylact
Bache. Ibid.

"MS. Transcript , . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, vol.
II, p. 78.

* A house aud lot in the west ward, belonging to William Axtell, was set aside
for the secretary of state, and a house and lot of Henry White, in the east ward,
was made the residence of the governor. Laws of N. Y., i, 759. The legislature
authorized the commissioner of this district to give Thomas Paine a farm of 300
acres, forfeited by the conviction of Frederick Devoe, and located in the town
ship of New Rochelle, Westchester County. Ibid., 751. John McKesson was
also given a house and lot in the east ward, forfeited by James Jauncey, on
account of his great service to the state. Ibid.

j 5 6 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [156

estates of thirteen loyalists.1 Not less than fifty-two loyal
ists in Queens county lost their lands in the same way.* The
sale of confiscated property began in Queens county on
November 19, 1784, and within four months .£14,265 was
received for the estates of nine loyalists. " Since the minutes
of the further sales are lost it is impossible to say how much
was actually turned into the state treasury from this county,
but no doubt the sales continued for several years, and the
sum realized was many times that given above. In Suffolk
county the commissioners sold the property of three loyal
ists during July and August, 1784, for ^8,554.4 In Rich-

1 Theophylact Bache, who lost but ,£488, and was able to save the rest of his
property by remaining in the state, Benjamin James, Augustus Van Cortlandt,
John Rapalje, who said his loss was ,£40,000, Whitehead Cornell, John Cornell,
William Cornell, Miles Sherbrook, Colonel Richard Floyd, James Hubbard, Ste
phen Thorn, Abraham Rapalje and William Axtell, who estimated his loss at
,£25,710. Ibid.

• Richard Hulet, Thomas Cornell, Stephen Huett, Joseph Beagle, John Kendall,
John Bodin, John Hulet, Isaac Denton, Charles A. Moorsener* David Beaty, Ga
briel Ludlow, who asked ^6,500 as compensation for his losses, Thomas Jones,
whose losses amounted to ^44,600, Archibald Hamilton, David Golden, Richard
Colden, George D. Ludlow, who estimated his loss at ^"7,000, Whitehead Hicks,
Samuel Clowes, George Folliot, who believed his loss to be ^"13,144, Samuel
Doughty, David Kissam, Gilbert Van Wyck, John Townsend, John Polhemus, Ben
jamin Whitehead, John Shoales, Nathaniel Moore, Samuel Hallett, who lost
;£6,ooo, William Weyman, Thomas Hicks, Benjamin Lester, David Colden of
Flushing, Dow Vandine, Henry Floyd, Joseph Ford, Israel Youngs, Isaac Youngs,
Plum Weeks, Johannes Barnet, Thomas Place, Jr., John Hewlett, John Kissam, Jo
seph Thome, Stephen Thome, Thomas Thome, Stephen Hewlett, Hewlett Town-
send, Jacob Moore, John Moore and Arthur Dingey. The first thirty-four names
were taken out of the MS. N. Y. Assemb. Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol. 25, pp.
268, 272, 292, 301, 316, and vol. 27, pp. 21 1, 327, 383. The last eighteen names
are given in Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 66, 67.

* Johannes Polhemus, Dow Vandine, David Colden, Daniel Kissam, Gabriel G.
Ludlow, Henry Floyd, George Folliott, Joseph Ford and George D. Ludlow. On
derdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 67.

4 Parker Wickham, Richard Floyd and George Muirison. MS. Abstract af
Certain Lands . . . Forfeited, etc., in Old Civil List Book in Suffolk county
clerk's office.

! 5 7] CONFISCA TION AND SALE OF PR OPER TV

mond county tory property met a similar fate. Although
there were many loyalists on Staten Island, still there are few
records extant giving the sales of forfeited estates.1 It is
very difficult even to approximate the total amount realized
from the sales of forfeited estates in the southern district out
side of the metropolis, but using the few figures preserved
and considering the relatively large number of loyalists whose
property was sold, the total amount must have reached
^"200,000 in hard money. This sum would make the total
for the southern district ^464,000 in standard money, or
$1,160,000 in Spanish silver.

In 1788 the sale of forfeited estates was entrusted to the
surveyor-general of the state.2 He was ordered to dispose
of the lands at the capital after eight weeks' notification in
the principal newspapers of the state,3 Sales were made in
this way until several decades of the nineteenth century had
passed away. In 1802 a bonus of twenty-five per cent, was
allowed to persons who should discover any unsold lands
belonging to attainted or convicted loyalists.4 Between 1803
and 1805 the property of five loyalists sold for nearly $14,-
ooo.5 The work of these two years was probably repeated
during the entire period from 1788 to 1808, after which sales
continued at rare intervals for another decade.6

1 Mrs. and Miss Dawson had 300 acres confiscated. MS. Transcript . . of
Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, etc., vol. 4. The MS. Court
Records of Richmond co. show that the estates of Peter Alexander Alaire and
John Christopher were sold as late as 1788. All of Christopher Billop's lands on
Staten Island were confiscated. Sabine, 229. Both he and Benjamin Seaman
were included in the general act of attainder.

1 Laws of N. Y., i, 822, Act of March 21, 1788.

1 Webster, Laws of N. Y., i, 307. * Ibid., ii, 47.

* MS. deeds marked Lott and M agin Patent, in surveyor-general's office. Isaac
Low, Sir John Johnson, Frederick Philipse, Beverly Robinson and Roger Morris.

6 Ibid. There are many bundles of sales, deeds, claims, appraisements, certifi
cates, etc., in the surveyor-general's office at Albany.

158 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

The English historian, Lecky, says that " Two-thirds of
the property of New York was supposed to belong to the
tories." x If this statement be intended to include the crown
lands, as well as the forfeited estates, it is undoubtedly true.
Approximating the total sales from the partial sales which
are left, it seems fair to conclude that the state received
one million two hundred and sixty thousand pounds in
standard money, or three million one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars in Spanish coin, from the sale of for
feited real estate. The total loss for personal and real
estate would be nearly three million six hundred thousand
dollars.2

During a period of fifty years after the peace of 1783 the
New York legislature was disturbed more or less by ques
tions concerning forfeited estates. Suits were brought to
recover property.3 For some years the legislature was
flooded with petitions from persons whose claims against loy
alists had not been satisfied, from those who had been forci
bly prevented from returning home when captured by the
British, from the heirs of loyalists, from repentant loyalists
and from the widows of loyalists. These petitions met
with varying degrees of success.4 Purchasers also petitioned
the assembly for the removal of various grievances.5 Whigs

1 Lecky, Hist, of Eng. in XVIII. Cent., in, 479; cf. Par I. Hist., xviii, 123-129;

cf. Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 773, 957.

1 In the claims submitted to the government of Great Britain, asking compensa
tion for losses, the total amount was considerably larger than this sum received by
the state.

3 MS. Assemb. Papers, Forfeited Estates, vol. 26, p. 16, John Waters, a Tryon
county loyalist, returned and sued John Thayer for selling his property, and re
covered £976. Thayer then petitioned the legislature to reimburse him.

* Ibid., volumes 25-29.

5 Jour, of Assemb. (1781), 26, 27, 50, 51, etc.; MS. petition of several hundred
tenants of Roger Morris against John Jacob Astor.

!59] CONFISCATION AND SALE OF PROPERTY l^g

were given permission to bring damage suits against loyalists
who had injured their property during the war,1 but in 1797
claims against forfeited estates were ordered barred in five
years.2 Some of the loyalists who were indicted for treason
appeared before the supreme court, and, by employing
shrewd lawyers, saved their estates.3 Others, like Theophy-
lact Bache, saved their property by the help of influential
relatives or friends on the whig side. Small owners, who
returned after the war, were in most cases able to recover
their estates.

Although the confiscation and sale of loyalist property
was primarily a punishment for treason against revolution
ary authority made good by war, still there was a result
growing out of it of greater importance than the acquisi
tion of property to the value of about $3,600,000 by the
state. That result was the weakening of the feudal element
in the social system of New York. The revolution was thus
a democratic movement in land-tenure as well as in political
rights. The ownership of the greater part of the lands of
the state by a few aristocratic landlords like the De Lanceys,
the Johnsons, the Skeenes, John Tabor Kempe, the Jessups,
Beverly Johnson, Roger Morris and others, now began to
give way to ownership by their dependants and tenants.
Large manors, patents and estates were to an extent cut up
into small lots and sold on easy terms to the common people.
Although it was not uncommon for the widow or son of a

1 Laws ofN. Y., i, 499, 700, Act of March 17, 1783. Loyalists who used whig
houses had to pay eight years' rent. Prosecutions were made against them for cutting
timber and other things. Over $1,000,000 were thus claimed for damages. Jones,
Hist, of N. y., ii, 251, 252, 255. Tn 1784, Ebenezer Allen, a loyalist who furn
ished supplies for Burgoyne, was prosecuted by the state for damages, and a judg
ment was rendered in favor of the state for .£375. Can, Archs. (1888), 716.

3 Laws of N. y., iii, 73.

8 Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 64, 66-67.

1 60 L ° YAL7SM IN NE W YORK [ \ 60

loyalist to buy in his property,1 yet it was not the rule.
The property of James De Lancey, for instance, in the
southern district, went to about 275 different persons, and
the 50,000 acres forfeited by Roger Morris in Putnam county
were sold to nearly 250 persons. The large tracts in the
central and northern parts of the state were divided into farms
of from one to five hundred acres and sold to poor farmers.
The whole movement was leveling, equalizing and demo
cratic, and left permanent social results in the new state.

1 In New York city the property of John Watts, Sr., was purchased by John
Watts, Jr., and Robert Watts. Eleanor Blauw bought the estate of Waldron
Blauw. Anna White took the lot of her attainted husband. Rachel Weather-
head did the same for John Weatherhead. Henry White, Sr.'s, property was bid
in by Henry White, Jr. Such cases appeared in every district.

CHAPTER VIII

THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS

ALTHOUGH the war virtually ended in 1781, the fate of
the loyalists was not definitely determined until the treaty of
peace in 1783. They had staked all upon the success of the
British arms, and had stubbornly opposed every suggestion
of concession or compromise. Lord North's terms of peace
were suicidal in their eyes.1 Nothing short of complete
victory and a restoration of the old colonial government
would satisfy them, because nothing less than that would
restore their own political power, save their property and
punish their rebellious persecutors. The re-establishment
of British supremacy after the Declaration of Independence
was absolutely essential to loyalist prosperity. To the very
last, in England and America, they urged war and insisted
that the revolutionists were on the verge of defeat. When
the English cause was lost, and with it their own, they
attributed it entirely to wicked ministers and shamefully
incompetent generals. The treaty of peace, therefore,
sounded the death-knell of their fondest hopes.2 Little could
they expect from their triumphant kinsmen, and henceforth
they were forced to rely upon the gratitude and generosity
of the mother country for which they had sacrificed nalive
land, property, comforts and life itself.

1 Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of the Am. Rev., i, 317-324.

2 One loyalist wrote that nothing was left them but " the consciousness of having
done their duty." Can. Archs. (1888), 834, Sherwood to Mathews, March 10,
1783; " Everything looks gloomy for the loyalists," he wrote at another time,
Ibid., 838, April 19, 1783.

161] 161

1 62 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK Fj 62

In concluding the treaty of peace with the victorious
United States, the English government made an honest
effort to provide for those loyal subjects in America who
had lost all for the crown and the empire.1 Shelburne really
expected that the loyalists would be protected by the treaty,
though he was far from being satisfied with its terms,"
while the American envoys knew that the provisions respect
ing the loyalists would never be carried out. The fourth
article stipulated that creditors on each side should " meet
with no lawful impediment" to recover all good debts in
sterling money. By the fifth article, it was agreed that the
Congress of the United States should " earnestly recom
mend " to the states the restoration of the rights and posses
sions of " real British subjects," and of loyalists who had not
borne arms against their countrymen. All other loyalists
were to be given liberty to go into any state within twelve
months to adjust their affairs and to recover their confiscated
property upon paying the purchasers the sale-price. The
sixth article stated that no future confiscations should be
made, that imprisoned loyalists should be released, and that
no further persecutions should be permitted.3

The Americans regarded the loyalists with greater aversion
than they did the English, and looked upon them as both
fools and traitors. Although victorious, they could not for
give, much less forget, the course of their former friends and
neighbors, who had disagreed with them honestly and fear
lessly about what was best for America. Congress sent the

1The loyalists who knew the hostility of their victorious countrymen thought
that the terms would not be enforced. Can. Archs. (1895), xiii. Cf- Instructions
to Carleton about the restoration of loyalist property, ibid. (1885), Feb. 16, 1783;
cf. ibid. (1887), 164, for the case of Van Allen, who went to Albany to collect his
debts, May 31, 1783.

1 Par I. Hist, of Eng., xxiii, 411.

' Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of the Am. Rev., vol. 6, 96. Parl. Hist, of Eng.,
xxiii, 354.

1 63] THE EMIGRA TION OF LOYALISTS

" recommendations " to the states, but professed to have no
power to enforce them. New York felt no obligation to re-
restore "tory" lands and to receive their owners as fellow-
citizens. These provisions of the treaty were repudiated and
the legislature declared that forfeited and sequestrated prop
erty ought not be returned, since England offered no com
pensation for property which had been destroyed.1 Loyal
ists who returned under the treaty of peace were insulted,
tarred and feathered, whipped and even "ham-stringed."'
The grand jury indicted before the supreme court about a
thousand of the richest loyalists for treason." Although
every effort was made to drive the loyalists out of the land,
to prevent their return and to effectually suppress those who
did come back as well as those who remained, still the loyalists
were so numerous in some sections that they were able to
carry on a bitter political contest/ In 1783 they voted for
governor and other officers.5 But an effort was soon made
to deprive them of the franchise and thus to greatly dimin
ish their influence. The act of May 12, 1784, declared that
all who had held office under the British, or helped to fit
out vessels of war, or who had served as privates or officers,
or had joined the British, or had left the state, to be guilty of
" misprison of treason " and disqualified from both franchise
and office.6 This is said to have excluded from voting two-
thirds of the inhabitants of New York city, Richmond and
Kings counties, one-fifth of those of Suffolk county, nine-

1 Journal of Senate (1784), p. 14; Jones, Hist of N. Y., ii, 494.

'/«</., ii, 244, 505; Can.Arcks. (1888), 840, 841, 843 (1890), 158 (1889),
72, 77-

* Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 251.

*Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 71. * Ibid., 62.

6 Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., ii, 248; Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 127; Laws of N.
K, i, 772. Fora description of the three parties in New York in 1784, cf. Jay,
Life of Jay, ii, 145.

1 64 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 64

tenths of Queens county, and all of the borough of West-
chester. When a tax of £i 50,000, payable in gold and silver,
was levied in 178 5, the whigs escaped easily, and the burden
fell upon the loyalists.1 By this and other measures the
former domestic foes, though tolerated, were eliminated as a
factor in New York politics.2 In 1782, debts due loyalists
were cancelled, provided one-fortieth was paid into the state
treasury.3 Local committees resolved that the loyalists who
were returning to their homes should not be tolerated,4 and
the people in general were determined not to allow loyalists
to return.5 The most obnoxious loyalist lawyers were for
some years refused the right to practice law.6 That barrier
was not removed until April 6, 1786, and then only on con
dition that they take an " oath of abjuration and alleg
iance." 7

Of the New York loyalists, some never left the state,
others fled but returned, and still others became permanent
exiles. The first class was very large and the least obnox
ious of the three. It was composed of two groups — those
who at heart were true to the crown and empire, but had
outwardly conformed to the will of congress and to the com
mittees, and those who were avowed loyalists, having re
fused to sign the " association," to obey the revolutionary
bodies, and who gave secret aid to the British, but who
never took up arms against the Americans. As early as

1 Can. Archs. (1890), 314; cf. Laws of iV. Y., i. 707; Jones, Hist, of N. K, ii,
249-250.

2 Ibid., 502-503.

3 Jour. ofAsscmb., v, 59-60, 73-76, 88-89.

4 Can. Archs. (1888), 791, 839, 841. "The committees through the country
are determined not to allow the return of loyalists." Ibid., 840. Report of John
Cobham, June 3, 1783.

* Ibid., (1888), 840, 841, 843, (1890), 158.

• Laws of N. K, i, 772, Oct. 9, 1779. * Jbid.t ii, 237.

1 65 ] THE EMIGRA TION OF LOYALISTS 1 65

1776 many under the first head took the oath of allegiance.1
After the war they were looked upon as genuine whigs.
When the tide began to turn against the English in 1778,
many of the second group took the oath of allegiance and
became citizens of the state.2 Severe laws and the harsh
measures of the commissioners on conspiracies had a like
effect.3 The lot of these persons- was not a hard one. Those
whose worst crime was open loyalty, who had been arrested,
imprisoned, exiled, or paroled, but never charged with
treason, were found in every community, and, although sub
jected to more or less abuse, were for the most part allowed
to remain after the war was over, and to keep their property.
While never fully forgiven, in time they came to be looked
upon as true Americans, and were given full political rights.
Even some who were strongly suspected, and no doubt were
guilty of treason, were allowed to remain because of the
intercession of friends or attorneys. The act of May 12,

1784, gave a special permit4 to twenty-seven loyalists to re
main in the state. Thousands in southern New York were
not molested, because they plead loyalty under stress of
British occupation, and were willing to abide by the results,
and because no local committees could disprove their asser
tions. They constituted an undoubted majority, so strong
that hostile feeling in the localities was not strong enough to
mark them for revenge. Still it was complained, January 3,

1785, that " those in New York whose estates have not been

1 Can. Archs. (1888), Haldimand Collection, 642.

* Ibid., (1889), 113, May 7, 1778; Laws of N. Y. (^886),!, 252.

5 Ibid., 370.

*Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y.. i, 127-159. Cadwallader Golden, Richard Harri
son, David Golden, John Watts and others begged the New York Assembly, Feb.
4, 1784, to remove the sentence of banishment against them, but it was then re
fused. MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists,
'.345-

1 66 ^ O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 66

confiscated are so loaded with taxes and other grievances
that there is nothing left but to sell out and move into the
protection of the British government." If the petitions of
loyalists to the crown for compensation for property losses
through loyalty be taken as a basis for comparison, the pro
portion of loyalists who emigrated from the counties above
New York city, as contrasted with those in the southern
part of the state, was as 439 to 27. During the war loyalists
in the northern counties were so harshly treated that they
left the state voluntarily, or they were forcibly removed.
They fled to Canada, or to New York, in large numbers. In
the metropolis, however, and on Long Island and Staten Is
land, the loyalists remained unmolested during the contest.
When peace came the fury of persecution had subsided ; con
sequently, most of them were willing to accept the new
order of things. These facts account for the difference in
the proportion.2

The loyal refugees who returned to their homes were not
so numerous as either the loyalists who never departed, or
those who, having departed, never came back; still such in
dividuals appear in all parts of the state. The families of
many who had gone to Canada, Nova Scotia or England,
continued to reside in New York, preserving their property or
endeavoring to recover it, and they thus helped to draw the
refugees back. Kind relatives, neighbors and friends in
duced others to return. Genuine love for their native land
led many to retrace their footsteps and brave the indignity
of their victorious communities. The wilds of Nova Scotia
and Canada, the cool reception in England and the refusal

1 Can.Archs. (1890), 314, Augustus Von Home's letter.

"MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, vols.
1 7-22. Albany furnished most of the 466 petitioners, then came Westchester,
Tryon, Dutchess, Charlotte, Orange and Cumberland counties in the order named.

• Can.Archs. (1889), 79; cf. ibid. (1886), 411.

THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS 1fy

of the British government adequately to reward their loyalty
sent many a disappointed "friend of government" back to
New York to begin life anew. Phrases such as " the fatal
day when I left home," " all I desire is to return and lay my
bones in that dear soil," and "I am not welcome here," are
found in their letters.1 Peter Van Shaack and loyalists of
his integrity and character, who both denounced the arbitrary
program of Great Britain and feared the results of indepen
dence, who wished to remain neutral, and who, when forced
to decide between two evils, went to England " under the
stress of double allegiance " to await the end of the war —
these persons were welcomed back by all but the extremists.
Peter Van Schaack returned in 1784, and by the act of May
12 was restored to full citizenship.2 On March 31, 1785,
thirty loyalists returned to Queens county from Nova Scotia.3
Similar bands came back to Westchester/ Dutchess, Albany,
Tryon and other counties. New York city was a great
haven for returned loyalists. There they could move easilyr
lose their identity and gain a new foothold. Philip R. Frey,
Hendrick Frey and Adrian Klock, of Tryon county, were
loyalists of another type. They joined the British and
served in the king's army, returned after peace was made
and were unmolested.5 Few, however, of this character
were thus favored. "Many tories came back after the war,
but their former neighbors . . . usually made the atmos
phere so close for them that not a few fled precipitately back
to Canada, some with and some without scourging, while

1 Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of Am. Rev., i, 313.

1 Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack, 403; Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i,
127-149.

8 Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 68.

*Baird, History of Rye, 265; cf. Case of William Hunt, of North Castle, who
was sued and imprisoned as a " Cow Boy." Sabine, American Loyalists, 557.
6 Simms, Frontiersmen of N. Y., 99, IOO, 344; Sabine, American Loyalists, 448.

1 68 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 6g

here and there one was suffered to remain, though unhon-
ored and hardly noticed by those who had been their warm
est friends before the war."1 In 1784 the Albany jail was
reported to be full of tories, who were whipped and perse
cuted.2 The statement was made in letters from Canada
that the loyalists were "daily coming in from the states to
avoid persecutions."3 One Becraft, a Schoharie tory, who
had taken part in the cruel border warfare, came back, was
whipped nearly to death by ten men and warned never to
return.4 Abraham C. Cuyler, ex-mayor of Albany and
major of a loyal battalion, returned to Albany, but soon fled
to Canada.5 Alexander Hamilton, as counsel, gave it as his
opinion, when Cuyler applied for leave to return to New
York to recover his property under the protection of the
treaty of peace, that it would be very dangerous personally
and that there was no prospect of the restoration of his
property.6 The inhabitants were urged to avoid returned
loyalists "as persons contaminated with the most dreadful
contagion," and to let them remain, as they justly merit,
"vagabonds on the face of the earth."7

The third class, those who expatriated themselves forever,
was very numerous and included the flower of the loyalist
party. They continued true British subjects, though exiled
to various parts of the world. They were found in England,
Ireland, Scotland, Nova Scotia, in various parts of Canada
and even in the islands of the sea.8 Many of them were driven
out by persecution, others fled through fear, but most of

1 Simms, Frontiersmen of N. F., 344.

1 Can. Arc/is. (1888), Haldimand Collection, 840, 841, 844.
1 Ibid. (1886), 429, May 31, 1784; ibid. (1887), 367.

4 Sabine, Loyalists of the Am. Rev., i, 223. 6 Ibid., 356.

6 Can. Archs. (1895), State Papers, Cape Breton, i,Feb. 13, 1784; ibid. (1887),
xiv. 1 Ibid. ( 1 887) , 242-243, April 17,1 783.

8 Bahamas, Newfoundland, etc.

! 69] THE EMIGRA TION OF L O YALIS TS

them left at the close of the war because their cause had
been lost. They loved British institutions, were true to their
oaths of loyalty, dreaded the scorn and contempt of their
victorious brothers, hated republicanism, loved adventure,
and wished to help preserve the integrity of the British em
pire.1 Some received offices, pensions and lands from the
British government.

The flight of New York loyalists began as early as 1774
and continued during ten years,2 The causes of this move
ment varied with different groups and at different periods.
To escape the vengeance of a New York mob, Dr. Myles
Cooper, president of King's College, was forced to leave in
May, 1775. In company with several other Episcopal
clergymen, he went to England and never returned.3 Rep
resentatives of the other professions, lawyers and physicians,
also to an extent took the same course. The loyalist sol
diers who joined the British in Canada and Boston in that
year, formed another group.4 When the war closed they
settled in various parts of the British dominions. Rich
merchants, like James Jauncey and William Bayard, formed
another group that retired to England early in the contest.
Closely allied with them were the great land-owners, like

1 " No loyalist of principle could endure to live under the imperious laws of
Washington and his minions," declared a "friend of government," March 10,
1783. Can. Archs. (1888), 834.

1 One Alpheus Avery was forced to flee from Westchester county in 1 774 because
he was a " tory." He entered the British navy and later asked for compensation.
But it was decided that he had no claim. MS. Transcript . . of Books and
Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. v.

* Moore, Diary of Am. Rev., i, 82. Dr. T. H. Chandler was one of them. Sa-
bine, American Loyalists, 166.

* Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viiS, 562, 563, 680; Min. of Prov. Cong., \, 234-
244, 886, iii, 274, 294, 331-333, iv, 48; Am. Archs., 4th ser., 1^,457-459, 1305,

S^. 17'9. 1761, 1900, iv, 187, 1117, vi, 1032; Cal. of N. Y. Hist. MSS.,
333-

I 70 LOYALISM IN NR W YORK r j 70

James De Lancey' of New York city, who crossed the
ocean never to return. Still another body of voluntary
exiles were the royal officials. They began to leave America
in 17/5, but the larger part remained in New York city or
Canada until the struggle ceased, when nearly all went to
Great Britain.2 Supplementing these five classes were the
common people — the farmers, mechanics, laborers and small
tradesmen — who began to emigrate in 1776, continued the
process throughout the war, and departed in large numbers
after 1783.

Early in 1777 the Convention ordered the " commissioners
on conspiracies" to compel loyalists either to take the oath
of allegiance, or to remove with their families within the
British lines.3 This marked the beginning of legally en
forced exile by the wholesale for the crime of loyalism, and the
measure was vigorously enforced.4 A second law strength
ened the act in April, 1778, and made banishment perpetual
after Jnly 18, I778.5 Neutrality was impossible, for every
person had to announce his political principles and alle
giance. All loyalists who refused to perjure themselves for
the sake of safety were banished and forfeited their property.
Many swallowed their convictions, took the required oath,
and remained unmolested. The test was severe and separ
ated the wheat from the chaff. By July, 1778, about a
thousand loyalists were receiving provisions in Canada — 209
at St. Johns, 208 at Montreal, 196 at Machiche, 126 at

1 Sabine, Loyalists of the Am. Rev., i, 367.

2 Ibid., 66 1. The case of John Tabor Kempe, the attorney general, is a good
example.

8 Jour, of Pro-v. Conv., i, 827, 855.

4 MS. Min.of Comsrs. on Conspiracies, i, 108, 117, 122, 123, 124; Jour, of
Assemb., iii, 16, 29, 36; Can. Archs. (1888), 776.

6Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., 1,22-24; cf. Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack,
485-487; cf. Can. Archs. (1888), 780, Carleton to Van Schaick, Oct., 1780; ibid.,
782, Clinton to Haldimand, March 27, 1781.

I j i ] THE EMIGRA TION OF LO YALIS TS ! 7 j

Pointe Claire, 87 at Sorel and 27 at Chambly.1 This num
ber included men, women and children,2 but no soldiers.
No doubt there were more who cared for themselves. The
number banished to New York city must have been larger.
With the decline of British power after 1778, the laws
against loyalists increased in severity. The act of attainder
of 1779 put fifty-nine of the wealthiest under the ban, and
forbade their return under penalty of death.3 Between
1779 and 1783 hundreds were "convicted" of treason and
banished by decree of the supreme court of the state. The
failure of both the imperial and loyalist cause, and the re
fusal of the states to enforce the provisions for loyalists in
the treaty of peace, produced the final great exodus.

The New York loyalists for the most part went to one of
three places — England, Nova Scotia or Canada. They
began to cross the Atlantic in 1/75, and continued to do so
for a decade. Those who took this course were persons in
high civil office, like John Tabor Kempe, Judge Thomas
Jones, William Axtell, Andrew Elliot and Abraham C. Cuy-
ler; military officers of advanced rank, like Oliver DeLancey,
John Harris Cruger and Archibald Hamilton ; men of wealth,
like James DeLancey and James Jauncey ; Anglican clergy
men, like Dr. Myles Cooper and Dr. Thomas B. Chandler;
and professional men, like Peter Van Schaack. They repre
sented the aristocracy, and before and after the treaty of peace
went to England to secure safety and compensation.

Two classes of loyalists went to England before 1783 —
those who went under " stress of double allegiance" to wait
for the end of the war as neutrals, and those who went as
champions of the royal cause, driven from America for their
loyalty.* Their number is uncertain, and was limited by the

1 Can. Arc/is. (1888), Haldimand Collection, 732, 734, 742. 3 Ibid., 742.

1 Greenleaf, Laws of N. Y., i, 26-38.

4 Cf. Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of Am. Rev., i, 317-324.

172 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK

inconvenience and expense involved. Certainly not more
than two thousand took this course.1 Many returned in
want to British North America,2 and a few found their way
back to the States.

The emigrants to Nova Scotia included not a few of the
aristocratic type, but consisted mostly of disbanded loyalist
soldiers, farmers, small merchants and traders, lawyers,
physicians, clergymen and persons of various trades and of no
trades. From and after 1776 small parties of loyalists found
their way there.8 In September, 1782, General Guy Carle-
ton wrote to Lieutenant-Governor Hammond at Halifax that
600 wished to embark for Nova Scotia, and that another large
company desired to leave in the spring, but that he could
send only 300. Prior to 1783, 500 loyalists from New York
were residing at Annapolis.4 When terms of peace were
concluded the metropolis was crowded with loyalists from
all parts of the United States. The British government was
under obligation to provide for them. To transplant them
in undeveloped parts of the British empire in America
seemed to be the best course. General Guy Carleton, who
was in command at New York, was alert and active in their
behalf. The loyalist historian, Judge Jones, says that 100,000
had left the city when it was finally evacuated,5 but this num
ber is probably an exaggeration.

1 Haight, Before the Coming of the Loyalists, 16, quotes this: " Sir Guy Carle-
ton also sent to England a numerous train of loyalists, who accompanied the fleet."

9 Can. Archs. (1890), 321, July 31, 1793. Judge George Duncan Ludlow said
that there were not more than 30 loyalists in London. MS. Transcript . . of
Books and Papers of . . American Loyalists, i, 34.

1 Can. Archs. (1894), Massay to Germain, June 27 and Oct. 6, 1776, 351, 354.

4 Raymond, The U. E. Loyalists, 35; cf. Can. Archs. (1894), 400, Ham
mond to Lords of Trade, May 9, 1782; ibid., 401, Carleton to Hammond, Oct.
26,1 782; ibid., 402, Parr to Townshend, Jan. 15, 1783; ibid., Parr to Nepeau,
Jan. 22, 1783; cf. ibid. (1886), 549, no. 417, and 550, no. 460; cf. Murdock, Hist,
of Nova Scotia, iii, 8.

5 Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., ii, 260, 504.

THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS,

An account of the territory from Annapolis to St. Mary's
bay was sent to New York January 14, I783.1 Plans now
began for a grand exodus. The departure was orderly.
Advance agents were sent ahead to choose sites and report.
The rich formed companies and chartered ships, while the
poor, upon application, were transported by the British gov
ernment. There was some difficulty in securing an adequate
supply of boats,8 and the newspapers of the day are full of
notices of the departure of vessels. By March, 1783, "num
bers of loyalists" arrived at Nova Scotia,3 and land surveys
began for them.4 On April 26 a fleet of twenty vessels car
ried 7,000 from New York city,5 and, on May 1 8, landed
them at St. Johns. Men, women, children and servants were
in the company. The fleet returned to transport others, and
by August 23 Governor Parr wrote that "upwards of 12,000
souls have already arrived from New York," and that as
many more were expected.6 By the end of September he
estimated that 18,000 had arrived, and stated that 10,000
more were expected from New York. These were located
chiefly at Halifax, Annapolis, Cumberland Bay,7 St. John
and Port Roseway.8 The St. John settlement was the most
numerous.9 On October 4 the governor thought they num-

1 This was sent by Amos Botsford and other advance loyalist agents. Murdock,
Hist', of Nova Scotia, iii, 13-15.

JOnderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, by, Gaine's N. Y. Gazette, Sept.
8,1783-

* Can. Archs. (1894), Letter of March 12, 1783, to Lord President, 404.

4 Ibid., 404, Parr to Townshend, May 13, 1783; ibid. (1888), 578.

5 (1894), 404, Parr to Townshend, June 6, 1783; cf. Baird, Hist, of Rye, 265;
Can. Archs. (1888), 578, Patterson to Halrhmand, May 8, 1783.

6 Ibid., (1894), 406, Parr to North, Aug. 23, 1783; ibid. (1888), 578; Mur
doch, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 19.
7 Arnherst.
•Shelburne. Cf. Can. Archs. (1888), 578, Parr to Haldimand, May 20, 1783.

* Ibid. (1894), 407, Parr to North, Sept. 30, 1783.

174 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [ T 74

bered 20,000,' and by December 16 about 30,000.* From
these centers settlements soon spread in all directions — to
Guysborough, Stormout, Baddeck, St. Peters, Louisburg and
other places. Most of the 3,000 negroes in New York city
settled at Shelburne.3

As early as November 30, 1782,* Prince Edward Island was
pointed out as a desirable location, ad the landholders there
offered to cede one-fourth of their lands to the loyalists.5
By January 10, 1785, however, only 260 had arrived,6 and
the number who settled there probably nev^r exceeded 300.
Cape Breton seemed to be an attractive place.7 Abraham C.
Cuyler asked for a grant there for himself and 500 families,
and received it.8 Most of the settlers on that island went,
with government aid, from Canada,? and by the fall of 1784
630 families with 3,150 individuals were located there.10

Emigration to Nova Scotia continued after the begin
ning of 1784. Within the period of one year, Shelburne
grew into a city of 1,400 houses and 12,000 people.11 At
the mouth of the St. John a city of between 2,000 and 3,000

I Can. Archs. (1894), Parr to Nepeau, Oct. 4, 1783.

* Ibid., 409, Parr to Shelburne, Dec. 16, 1783; cf. Kingston and the Loyalists
of '1783-, cf. Tattle, Hist. ofDom. of Can., 327.

8 Cf. Raymond, The U. E. Loyalists, 32; cf. Can. Archs. (1895), 25, Carleton
toDundas, Dec. 13, 1791; cf. ibid. (1894), 478,489.

*Ibid., (1895), Prince Edward Island, 33. * Ibid., 34, 50, 52.

6 Ibid., 43, cf. Kingsford, Hist, of Canada, vii, 221.

7 Can. Archs. (1894), 405, Parr to North, July 6, 1783.

* Ibid. (1895), CaPe Breton, I, Feb. 21, March u, 1785; cf. ibid. (1883), in
(1885), 286,310,311.

9 Ibid. (1886% 448, 45°. 452, 453. 64, (1887), 165, 363, (1888), 753, (1890),
144.

™ Jbid. (1885), 286, (1888), 753, 754; cf. Kingsford, Hist, of Canada, vii, 221;
cf. Brown, Hist, of the Island of Cape Breton, 391, 392.

II Can. Archs. (1894), 409, 413, 417.

THE EMIGRATION OF LOYALISTS ^5

houses had sprung up by November 15, 1784.' Loyalists
were settled for 150 miles up the course of that river.1 On
January 15, 1784, Governor Parr reported the "arrival of a
considerable number of refugee families." * In July of that
year a body of New York Quakers who had been " plundered
and ruined," asked permission to join their brethren.* About
300 poverty-stricken lo> tsts reached Halifax from England
in August, and more weie then expected.5 In December an
officer spoke of the " multitude of loyalists arrived and arriv
ing." 6 The few emigrants in 1785 did not materially change
the total number. The estimates of the whole number of
loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia vary from J8, 347 7 to
40,000. 8 England furnished as many as 33,682 rations, and
on November 30, 1785, was still feeding 26,317 refugees.^
On Nov. 24, 1783, Sir Brook Watson, the commissary-gen
eral of New York, reported 29,244 refugees,10 while Governor
Parr's estimate was 3O,oco.11 Counting all loyalists in Nova
Scotia proper, New Brunswick, Cape Breton and Prince
Edward Island, it must be concluded that not less than
35,000 found new homes in these regions.1" Of these, prob-

1 Can. Archs. (1894), 417, (1895), 2, New Brunswick Papers. * Ibid. (1895), 2.

* Ibid, (i 894), 41 2; ibid, (i 888), 5 79.

* Ibid. (1894), 412, Parr to Sidney, July 24, 1784; ibid., 426, 444.

6 Ibid., 422, August 10, 1784; ibid., 423, August 26, 1784; ibid., 424, Sept. i,
*784; ff> Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 34-35. Ol them 41 died. They
were destitute of clothes and food.

' Can. Archs. (1894), 429> Campbell to Sidney, Dec. 29,

I Ibid. (1884), p. xl, (1895), 36- Col. Robert Morse's description of Nova Scotia.

8 Ibid. (1875), Prince Edward Island Papers, 36, Stuart to Nepeau, May 14,
1784.

9 Ibid. (1894), 438, Campbell to Sidney.

10 Cf. New Brunswick Magazine, i, 96, 101.

II Can. Archs. (1894), 413, 423, Parr to North, Feb. 4 and Aug. 13, 1784. This
was the estimate of Rev. John Breynton in his report to; the Soc. for the Prop, of
the Gospel.

11 Cf. Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 507; cf. Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 23, 34.

176 LOYA LISM IN NE IV YORK f * 7 ^>

ably 30,000 came from New York, and more than 20,000
were, we may believe, inhabitants of that state.1

With the exception of about 200 families, who went to the
Bahama Islands, the remainder of the loyalists of New York
removed to Canada. The emigration northward began in
1775 and continued for several years after the war ceased.
Seven general routes were taken ; first, by the way of the
Hudson, Mohawk, Wood Creek, Lake Oneida and the Os-
wego to Lake Ontario ; 2 second, up the Hudson, Mohawk,
West Canada Creek and Black River to Sackett's Harbor ;
third, up the Hudson, across the Mohegan mountains, down
the Moose and Black rivers to Sackett's Harbor, or down
the Oswegatchie to Ogdensburg; fourth, up the Hudson,
over the mountains and down the Racket river to the St. Law
rence ; fifth, up the Hudson, down Lake George and Cham-
plain and the Sorel to Montreal ; sixth, by the way of the
Atlantic and the St. Lawrence river ; and seventh, across
western New York.3 Journeys were often made in the win
ter with sleighs, when whole neighborhoods united for the
enterprise.* In general three classes of loyalists settled in
Canada — the loyal provincial troops, those who were driven
from their homes by persecutions during and after the war,
and the voluntary exiles. Before July 4, 1776, those who
went to Canada were almost entirely of the first class, but
after that event refuges of the other two classes found their
way thither.5 With the increased activity of the inquisi-

1 Some loyalists left Nova Scotia and went to Canada or to the south. Can.
Archs. (1895), 61. Others got large land grants, sold them and returned to the
U.S. Ibid, (i 894), 4 1 8.

2 This was a favorite route to Upper Canada. Ryerson, Loyalists in America,
ii, 188-189.

3 The U. E. L. Centennial (1884), address by Hon. G. W. Allen, 57-58;
Caniff, Hist, of the Prov. of Ontario, 132. This was the common route to Lower
Canada. * Ibid., 143.

6 On Dec. 2, 1776, a party of loyalists reached Quebec, and temporary relief

! 7 7 ] THE EMIGRA TION OF LO YALIS TS 1 77

torial boards, the passage of harsher laws against traitors,
and the surrender of Burgoyne, many loyalists were driven
to Canada, while others felt it wisest to go in order to avoid
trouble.1

By 1778, counting loyalist troops and men, women and
children who were refugees, not less than 3,000 had found
their way to Canada.'2 " Refuges are increasing daily,"
wrote an official at Quebec on November I.3 " Helpless
friends of government" were on their way to Niagara.4 Until
1783 they were constantly arriving.5 By 1782 they were so
numerous that monthly returns were made of them.6 With
the treaty of peace came a great rush to the north. On June
4, 1783, Sir Guy Carleton wrote to General Haldimand that
"200 families wish to go to Canada;"7 and a month later
eight companies of loyalists, organized as militia, had em
barked.8 They intended to settle in the county of Fronte-
nac. By the middle of August they reached Quebec.9 Part
of them were from Tryon county.10 On August 8 a second
company embarked for Canada,11 and arrived there Septem-

was given. Can. Archs. (1885), 25°» 25Z» ^r Guy Carleton to Gen. Phillips, Nov.
29 and Dec. 2, 1776. All of them took an oath of allegiance. Ibid., 253.

1 Letter of Col. John C. Clark, given in Ryerson, Loyalists in America, ii, 217;
Caniff, Hist, of the Prov. of Ontario, 61-67. Also Scraps of Local History, in
Ryerson, ii, 224.

1 Can. Archs. (1883), 83, (1888), 742, shows that there were 853 loyalists at
six places. 3 Ibid. (1886), 404, no. 294.

* Ibid. (1880), 544, 549, (1883), 56, 113, 203, (1887), 246, 247, 249, 352,355,
365* 369. 372» 373. 378, 460; ibid. (1888), 619, 627, 685, 687, 688.

6 Ibid., 365. 6 Ibid. (1883), 83, Oct. 6, 1778.

* Ibid. (1887), Haldimand Collection, 535, 563, Carleton to Haldimand
from New York, June 4, 1783.

* Ibid., 534, 563, Carleton to Haldimand, July 4 and 6, August 8.

9 Ibid., 564. Return of Aug. 14 and 16, 1783, at Quebec.

10 Ibid. Return of Aug. 1 7, at Quebec.
"•Ibid. Carleton to Haldimand, Aug. 8, 1783.

178 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 78

her 6.1 On September 8 a third company, under Captain
Michael Grass and Captain Van Alstine, with loyalists from
Rockland, Orange, Ulster, Westchester, Dutchess and Col
umbia counties, set sail for Upper Canada. They reached
Quebec a month later, wintered on the Sorel, and settled on
Quinte Bay.2 It was reported that 3,000 more loyalists
wished to go to Canada.3 Four families, disappointed in the
new region, returned to New York city.4 Alexander White,
a former sheriff of Tryon county, led a large party to Upper
Canada to settle between Glengarry and Quinte Bay.5 This
is a sample of the many small groups of loyalists who went
to the Canadian wilderness to carve out homes and begin
life anew. The English population in Lower Canada6 in
creased from comparatively few in 1782, to about 20,000 in
1791, and was due very largely to the influx of loyalists.7
In March, 1784, 1,328 "friends of government" were being
fed at Quebec.8 On the seigniories of the Sorel, in eight
townships at the Long Sault, in five townships at Cataraqui,
at Point Mullie in the vicinity of Montreal, Chambly, St.
Johns and the Bay of Chaleurs were settled in 1784 5,628
men, women and children.9 Probably there were at that

1 Can. Archs. (1887). Return of Sept. 6, 1783, at Quebec; ibid., Sept. 15.
1 Cf. Haight, Coming of the Loyalists, 6; cf. Ryerson, Loyalists in America, ii,
1 88, 287; Caniff, Hist. ofProv. of Ontario, 132, 422, 449; Can. Archs. (1887), 436.
3 Ibid., 433, Riedesel to Haldimand, June 5, 1783.

* Ibid., 564, Haldimand to Carleton, Sept. 15, 1783.

5 He advertised his expedition in Gainers New York Gazette, June 7, 1783, no.
1655. Can. Archs. (1888), 959, Maurer wrote to Mathews, June 17, 1784, " Loy
alists are daily coming in across the lake."

• The Constitutional Act, 31 George III., chap. 31, made the Ottawa river the
boundary between Upper and Lower Canada in 1791.

7 Ryerson, Loyalists in America, ii, 287, note.
*Can. Archs. (1883), 115, (1885), 320, 369, (1888), 744.
-Ibid. (1891), 4-20, gives a complete list of names and places of settle
ment; cf. ibid. (1888), 753, 754, (1883), 115-

! 79] THE EMIGRA TION OF LOYALISTS l 79

time many more loyalists in Lower Canada, who had as yet
made no definite settlement. By 1791 the loyalist popula
tion did not fall far short of 10,000 in the region below
Cataraqui.

It is estimated that in 1783 10,000 loyalists reached Upper
Canada,1 that the next year the population had doubled, and
by 1791 was 25,ooo.2 These numbers are certainly too
large. Perhaps 17,000 would be a more reliable estimate
for 1 79 1.3 They settled along the entire course of the upper
St. Lawrence, the northern shore of Lake Ontario, the west
ern banks of the Niagara river and on the Canadian side of
Lake Erie.4 In 1789 there was a " great influx of Ameri
cans " to the fertile regions of upper Canada.5 The " Old
United Empire List" and the "Supplementary List," pre
served in the department of crown lands at Toronto give the
names of the heads of about 6,000 loyalist families.6 Most
of the names are those of soldiers. Including the wives and
children of these, together with other loyalists in Canada
whose names are not included in the " lists," a total of prob
ably 20,000 would result, of whom perhaps 15,000 were for
merly inhabitants of the empire state.

The period of the dispersion of the loyalists covered the
twelve years subsequent to 1775. During that time possibly
60,000 persons of the defeated party went, either from or

1 Ryerson, Loyalists in America, ii, 287, note.

2 The United Empire Loyalists' Centennial (1884), 93, address by Hon. J. B.
Plumb.

1 Pitt gave 10,000 as the population in 1791 ; cf. The United Empire Loyalists'
Centennial (1884), 27, address by Sir Richard Cartwright; ibid., 109, address by
William Kirby; cf. Sir Richard Bonnycastle, Canada Before f8jf, i, 24-25; Can.
Archs. (1890), 236.

* Harris, United Empire Loyalists, 9-10; Can. Archs. (1890), 168.

* Ibid. (1886), 583, no. 284.

' The United Empire Loyalists' Centennial (1884), 129-333, nas tne complete
"Lists" reprinted; cf. Can. Archs. (1883), 206.

1 80 L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 1 gO

through New York, to various parts of the British dominions,
and of this number about 35,000 had been inhabitants of
the former province of New York.

Beyond question New York was the stronghold of loyal-
ism, and had more adherents to the British flag than any
other state.1 Thousands of the most influential loyalists
could be named, because they have left themselves on rec
ord in British army and navy lists, in loyal addresses, in the
minutes of inquisitorial boards, in the forfeiture and sale of
their property and in petitions to the British government.
Still other thousands are known to have been loyalists col
lectively, though not individually. It is impossible, there
fore, to give the exact number of loyalists in New York.2

The loyalist party, as an active organization with a defi
nite part to play, varied in the number of its adherents with
the changing scenes of the revolution. In 1775 and the
early months of 1776, before the edict of separation had
been decreed, at least ninety-five per cent, of the people
professed loyalty to the king, empire and British constitu
tion. The remaining five per cent, embraced those ardent
republicans who openly advocated independence. The Dec
laration of Independence made loyalty to the king or to the
Continental Congress, the issue on which party lines were
finally formed. After that great event it was still believed
that a majority of the " honest-hearted people in New York"
were on the king's side.3

The whigs were wont to believe that the open loyalists
alone, whose nature, interests and convictions led them to
defiant declarations against the revolution and to action for

lAm. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 359.

3 Ibid., vi, 789. "The movements of this kind of people ... are more easy
to perceive than describe," wrote Washington to Congress, June 10, 1776.

* Can. Archs. (iSSS), 855. " Calu" to Johnson, Sept. 20, 1776; (/Moore,
Diary of Am. Rev., ii, 449.

! 8 I ] THE EMIGRA TION OF LOYA LIS TS 1 g l

the established government, constituted the party. They
formed but a minority, however, and were supplemented by
the secret loyalists, who were so timid and cautious that they
either remained as neutral as possible, or else played a false
part by professing to support the revolution when at the
same time they were acting secretly against it. The loyalists
always insisted that they formed a large majority in New
York and that an honest vote would prove it. Great Britain
believed that the loyalists outnumbered the whigs.1 Gallo
way asserted that " more than four-fifths of the people " pre
ferred a constitutional union with England, and in 1779 he
declared that nine-tenths of the colonists would vote for it.2
While these figures are exaggerated, yet the loyalists consti
tuted no small part of the population. From first to last New
York city was overwhelmingly tory. Early in 1776 it was
reported that all the leading inhabitants were at heart with
the crown, and that at least 2,000 of them could be pointed
out.3 From the arrival of the British until their evacuation,
this city was the center of loyalism in America. Washington
declared that most of the people on Long Island were loyal
ists and ready to help the British,4 and it was said that there
were only forty-five whigs on Staten Island.5 Southern New
York had, it appears, a large majority of loyalists before its
occupation by royal troops, and it was but natural that
loyalist sentiment should increase during the seven years of
British occupation. There was not a single county above

1 Letter in HoWs N. Y. Journal, April 27,1775; declaration in Rivington's
Gazette, March 9, 1775; London letter in ibid., March 16, 1775; Am. Archs., 4th
ser., iv, 587, vi, 1338.

1 Examination of Joseph Galloway, etc., 12; Galloway, Letters to A Nobleman,
etc., 21.

1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., iv, 587, vi, 1338.

* Ibid., iv, 1066, 1095, vi» 725> !324« 133%'> Min. of Prov. Cong., iv, 371; Docs,
rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 663; Stiles, Hist, of Kings Co., i, 32.

5 Gaines1 N. Y. Gazette, Oct. 21, 1776; Docs. rel. to A'. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 681.

1 8 2 L O YALISM IN NE IV YORK [ j 8 2

New York city that did not have a powerful faction of
loyalists within its borders.1 In many localities they actually
outnumbered their opponents, and certainly one-third of the
inhabitants along the Hudson and Mohawk rivers were of the
loyalist political faith. It seems fair to conclude, therefore,
after averaging the loyalists of southern New York with
those of the regions to the north, that one-half of the pop
ulation upheld the doctrine of loyalism.2 In other words,
out of a population of 185,000, 90,000 were loyalists, of
whom 35,000 emigrated and 55,000 accepted the inevitable
and became valuable members of the new state.

lAm. Archs.,4Xh sen, iii, 826, iv, 187, 188, 828, 830, v, 39, vi, 1385, 1415;
Dawson, Wcstchester Co., 83, n. 4, 154; Howell, Hist, of Alb. and Schenect. Cos.,
393-

•John Adams thought that New York would have joined the British had not the
example of New England and Virginia deterred her. Works of John Adams, x,
63, no. Judge Thomas McKean believed that one-third of all the colonists were
loyalists, ibid., 87. Alexander Hamilton declared that not half of the people were
whigs in 1775, and that one-third still sympathized with the British in 1782, Win-
sor, North America, vii, 185, 187. Gouverneur Morris thought that it was doubt
ful whether more than one-half the people of New York " were ever in really
hearty and active sympathy with the patriots," Roosevelt, Gouverneur Morris, 36.
In 1782 it was still reported that more were for the king than for Congress, Can.
Archs. (1888), 925. Sabine concluded that "in New York the whigs were far
weaker than their opponents."

CHAPTER IX

TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS BY GREAT BRITAIN

AFTER a losing contest of eight years and a treaty of
peace through which 35,000 New York loyalists lost their
wealth and homes and were scattered over the remaining
parts of the empire, they were forced to throw themselves
upon the generosity of the British government. The nature
of their claims and the character of imperial compensation
remain to be considered.

From the outbreak of the revolution the policy of Great
Britain was to use the loyalists to help subdue it. There
fore loyalism was encouraged by fair promises and induce
ments. To the loyal colonial volunteers, who entered the
British service in increasing numbers from 1775 to 1783,
large tracts of land at the close of the war were offered, in
addition to the clothing, rations and pay of regulars.1 This
promise was faithfully kept. Loyalist officers were well
treated, and many a New Yorker secured a good appoint
ment in the royal army or civil service in recognition of
merit in the effort to suppress rebellion. Many others were
given good pensions2 or half-pay.3 Loyalists not in military
service were promised protection against their rebellious
brothers and compensation in case of loss through loyalty.
In this way their moral and material assistance was sought in
the contest. Hence the governor was ordered "to offer

1 Can. Arc/is. (1890), 80, Germain to Carleton, Mch. 26, 1777; ibid. 87, 96.
(1888), 745, (1883), 75.

1 Ibid. (1886), 432. •/#</., 431; Par/. Reg., vol. 35, 209.

183] 183

1 84 L O YAL1SM IN NE W YORK [ i 84

every encouragement" to loyalists,1 and the king's royal
commissions proposed "due consideration" for the " merito
rious service" of all who in any way aided in the efforts to
quell the insurrection.2

As early as November 18, 1775, the British government
ordered the governor of Florida to receive and protect all
"friends of government." A proclamation to this effect
was printed and publicly circulated in New York city.3 But
it was not enforced, because Governor Tryon was able to
protect obnoxious loyalists until the arrival of the royal
forces in the summer of 1776. New York city, after its occu
pation by the British, became the loyalists' Mecca.4 Thither
they went from all parts of the state for protection and suc
cor. They had implicit trust in the power of the British
to give them both. To the very last they confidently be
lieved that the revolution would be crushed, and that they
would be victors.5 They endured abuse, lost their real and
personal property and suffered enforced or voluntary exile
all the more easily because they were certain of retribution
and ample restitution.

There was a marked difference between the treatment of
loyalists by the civil and military authorities of Great Brit
ain. Loud and bitter were the complaints made by loyalists
concerning the cruelty, robbery, insults and ill treatment
they suffered from the British army. The whigs were called
" rebels," but the tories were sneered at as " damned traitors

eg. (i775)» 'l> l86-
1 Annual Reg. (1776), Proclamation of the Howes in June.
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 340-341.

4 Can.Archs. (1885), 181, Hutcheson to Haldimand, July 10, 1776; ibid., 182,
Aug. 8, 14 and 26, 1776, and Jan. i, 1777. Five loyalist governors were there at
once.

5 Docs. rel. to A'. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 781.

185] TREA TMENT OF THE L O YA US TS l 3 r

and scoundrels."1 On Long Island the loyalists were plun
dered of crops, cattle, horses and even household goods.2
On Staten Island " the tories were cruelly used," plundered
and maltreated, until they were even willing to poison the
British. 3 Those who went with the whigs and then deserted
were well- treated,4 while the loyal farmers who voluntarily
gave liberal supplies to the British, were later harshly ordered
to continue it.5 It was not uncommon to impress loyalists
into military service.6 Those who went to Halifax in 1776
were told that they must take up arms, or get no relief, and
some were even forced to work in coal mines. 7 It was re
ported that Sir Guy Carleton whipped all loyalists who re
fused to arm.8 For inciting desertion loyalist soldiers were
given 1000 lashes.9 Burgoyne grumbled about them, said
they had been overrated, and attributed his defeat largely to
them.10 Because of the barbarities of the British, many loy
alists refused to join them." The harshest loyalist tirades
were written against the unjustifiable conduct of British mil
itary officers.12

I Am. Archs., 5th sen, ii, 1276; cf. Rivingtorfs Royal Gazette, Jan, 30, 1779,
no. 244; ibid., May 22, 1779, no. 276.

* Jones, Hist, of N. Y.,\, 114-118, 136.

* Am. Archs., 5th sen, i, nio, 1112, I532;<:/ Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of Am.
Rev., i, 303.

4 Rivingtorfs Royal Gazette, Jan. 30, May i, and May 22, 1779, no. 276, etc.

* Ibid., Sep. 10, 1778, Mch. 13, 1779, Jan. 23, 1779, no. 242, etc.

6 Can. Arc/is., (1886), 594, no. 69; Public Papers of George Clinton, i, 548;
Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 1112.
'Ibid., 46, 98.

8 Can. Archs. (1888), 774, Phillips to Carleton, Apr. n, 1776.
9 Ibid. (1885), 191, 256.
10 f bid. (1883), 75, 76, 77, (1888), 746, 748, (1890), 86.

II Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of the Am. Rev., \, 22-24; Jones, Hist, of N. Y., i,
138, 201, 341, ii, 136, 137; cf. Am. Mag. of Hist., vi, 421.

12 Cf. Jones, Hist, of N. Y.

1 86 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ r 86

Relying upon the promises made by the king's agents and
on their own expectations, loyalists early asked for material
aid from the civil power. In 1776 it was written that there
was not a province in America " which does not afford shoals
of petitioners hanging about the treasury." In fact, the ad
ministration was " unable to answer the numerous demands." l
Those fleeing to England for loyalty's sake were either given
positions or granted temporary annuities.2 In New York
city, from the time of Howe's arrival till the treaty of peace,
loyalists were received with open arms by the royal agents.
Many were given lucrative civil or military offices, and all
refugees received more or less aid.3 The deserted lands
and houses of the revolutionists in southern New York
were given, leased or rented to them.4 They were allowed
to cut timber, and build houses on vacant lands.5 Sub
scriptions were taken for the needy, who were ordered to go
in a body to the police office for aid.6 The " associated ref
ugee loyalists," organized to make themselves self-support
ing, held lotteries to raise money.? As late as March 10,
1783, suffering loyalists were asked to apply for their allow
ances.8 Governor Tryon wished to institute an office of in-

1 Am. Archs., 5th ser., i, 149, Oliver to Winslow, July lo, 1776; cf. ibid., ii,

* Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 569. April 5, 1775, Drs. Cooper and Chand
ler were voted an annual allowance of £200.

3 Ibid., 568, 773-774, 799, 809. James Rivington was made royal printer at
,£100 a year. Can. Archs. (1883), 71 ; Rivington's Royal Gazette, Jan. 30, March
10, 1779, and Dec. 23 and 28, 1780. Christopher Billopp was made policeman
of Staten Island.

4 Ibid., Feb. 17, 1779, no. 249; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 774, 809.
6 Rivington 's Royal Gazette, Feb. 1 7, and March 24, 1 779.

6 Ibid., March 13, 1778, no. 256.

i Ibid.. Nov. 13, 1779, Dec. 27, 1780, etc.; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii.
769-77°'

8 Gained N. Y. Gazette, March 17, 1783, no. 1639.

! 8 7] TREA TMENT OF THE L O YALIS TS l g 7

quiry " to examine and register all loyalists coming into the
British lines and to take cognizance of their losses and suf
ferings."1 Lord George Germain expected New York to
compensate loyalists for their losses, when the rebellion
should be stamped out.2 Through these various helpful
measures the British officials hoped to lighten the burden
of the loyalists and to lessen the expense to government.3

The many loyalists who went to Canada, and the few who
went to Nova Scotia before 1782 were given food and shelter
until some definite provision could be made for them. Sir
Guy Carleton wrote to General Phillips from Quebec that
temporary relief would be given all New York refugees.4
Those who joined Burgoyne and fled north after his sur
render were well cared for.5 By July I, 1779, there were
853 loyalists, excluding soldiers, in Canada receiving pro
visions at seven different points,6 and this number rapidly
increased. Comfortable houses and barracks were provided,
or else huts were built for them.7 Some were allowed to
settle on estates as tenants.8 Machiche was set aside as a
refuge for the wives and children of loyalists in the British
service.9 The general policy was to receive all loyalists,
help the needy, encourage the men to enlist in the army,
and make all as self-supporting as possible. Hence the
women were given washing to do,10 and the men were sup-

1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist.t viii, 771, Tryon to Clinton, July 26, 1779.
1 Ibid., 768, Germain to Robertson, July 9, 1779.

* Ibid., 801, Robertson to Germain, Sept. I, 1780.
4 Can. Archs. (1885), 250, (1888), 744.

* Ibid. (1886), 387, 393, 399, 407, 528, 544, 594, 655-659, 660, 663, (1888),
648, 687, 732, 734, 742.

e Ibid. (1886), 404, no. 294. 7 Ibid. (1886), 401, Oct. 1, 1778, (1888), 732.

*Ibid. (1886), 403, Oct. 7, 1778; cf. Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 156.

9 Can. Archs. (1888), 726, Jan. 22, 1781.

10 Ibid., (1888), 688, June 25, 1780.

I 88 LOYALISM IN NE W YORK [x 88

plied with other work.1 Still fuel, beds, and household
goods were furnished them,2 clothing was given,3 and occa
sionally money was paid them as pensions.4 Arms were re
fused, however.5 Their claims were usually submitted to,
and passed on by, a board appointed for that purpose.6 In
1782 Townshend ordered General Haldimand to provision
the loyalists, make out a list of them, and return an account
of their losses.7 Officers were detailed to watch and guard
them, and monthly reports of their condition were made.8
England's policy of strict economy in dealing with them, and
the scarcity of supplies, caused much suffering among them,?
as was natural under the circumstances of war ; still her
treatment was just and generous, and the complaints were
comparatively few. It was believed by both loyalists and
Englishmen that, when the revolution was crushed, the ex
penses incurred would be paid by the rebellious colonies.

The refusal of New York to comply with the terms of
peace relating to the loyalists threw 35,000 of them upon
the British government for temporary support.10 Compen
sation had been promised them and now they demanded it,
not as charity, but as justice. The vast majority of the
loyalists had lost but little property. Many who went to
Nova Scotia took their personal effects with them, and some
even tore down their houses to take the material to the wil-

1 Can. Arc/is. (1888), 627,651, 724, 727, 732, 745, 749, 977.

* Ibid, (i 886), 405, Nov. 19, 1778.
3 Ibid. (1888), 648, 734.

* Ibid. (1888), 729,734, 750.
*lbid. (1888), 722.

•Ibid. (1888), 748, 750, (1886), 418, (1887), 106, 108.

T Ibid. (1885), 284, Feb. 28.

•Ibid. (1888), 685, 721, 725, 736, 745, (1886), 402.

•Ibid. (1886), 544, (1888), 658, 725, 726, 736.

10 Ibid. (1886), 552, no. 50.

! 89] TREA TMENT OF THE L O YALISTS

derness for new homes.1 Not a few were able to dispose of
their property before leaving.2 Those who went to Canada
after 1783 drove their live stock before them and took as
much personal property as they could carry, while others
returned for their goods.3 Losing little of value through
loyalism, most of the unfortunates demanded no more of the
crown than land and supplies for starting again in life. The
minority of the loyalists, composed of the wealthy, who
had lost all their possessions, offices and established incomes
for the sake of the unity of the empire, demanded indemnity
in British gold.

England accepted the responsibility. To the loss of her
colonies and the war debt was added this extra burden.
All loyalists were to be treated as fairly and equitably as
possible. To the masses, therefore, lands, tools, provisions
and seeds were given in British North America. To in
fluential citizens, army officers, royal officials and loyal
churchmen were given larger land grants, lucrative positions
in the army, state or church, or pensions. Actual losses
were made good in proportion to services rendered. All
who suffered in their " rights, properties and professions"

1 Sabine, Loyalists of Am. Rev., i, 288; cf. Gainers N. Y. Gazette, Aug. 29, 1783,
and Sept. 8, 1783. The Board of Commissioners had to be consulted before it
could be done.

2 Onderdonk, Queens Co. in Olden Times, 61-63. This was in accord with the
treaty of peace. Jones, Hist, of N. K, i, 266-268. The papers are full of sales,
auctions, etc., of loyalists about to leave. Israel Young, of Queens co., sold his
farm of 500 acres before going to Nova Scotia. MS. Transcript of . . Papers

of the American Loyalists, vol. 17, p. 192. Christopher Billopp sold his estate on
Staten Island in 1782. He had 1078 acres valued at £15 an acre. He sold it for
£8000, but lost, he claimed, $5000 by it. Ibid., vol. 4. Benjamin Seaman sold
his estate on Staten Island before leaving. Sabine, li, 272. Henry Mellows went
to New York to sell his property after the war. MS. Transcript of . . Books and
Papers . . of the American Loyalists, vol. 1 8, p. 65. C. W. Apthorp remained in
New York city to sell his property before going to Canada. Ibid., vol, 17, p. 581.
' Can. Archs. (1886), 412; Canifi, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 143.

LO YALISAf IN NE W YORK

j 90

for the sake of loyalty were recognized as having a claim to
compensation.1 Before evacuating New York city, Sir Guy
Carleton was instructed to collect the loyalists' debts in ac
cordance with the treaty of peace. He created a commis
sion to examine all loyalists' claims, above ,£10, contracted
after November I, 1776, to hear all parties, call witnesses,
ascertain the exact sums due each claimant and collect
them. The commissioners sat for seven months, drew their
pay, but compelled the payment of no debts. The loyalists
protested in vain. Evacuation took place, and they lost
the honest debts due them.2

By inducing loyalists to settle in Canada or Nova Scotia,
Great Britain made good her promise to reimburse them,
and, at the same time, was developing rich parts of the em
pire in a much-needed direction. As early as May 9, 1782,
loyalists applied for lands in Nova Scotia.3 Governor Parr
advised that each family be given 500 acres of land, every
single man 300 acres, and that 2,000 acres for a church, and
1,000 acres for a school be set aside in each township.4 It
was estimated that there were 12,000,000 acres of ungranted,
cultivable lands in Nova Scotia in 1783.5 Surveying began in
the spring of that year, and by October it had cost ^3,ooo.6
Seven surveyors plotted the land for a distance of 150 miles
up the St. John ; six men did the same work for the district of
Shelburne, Port Mouton and the coast between the two ; five
surveyed Annapolis, Bason, St. Mary's Bay, Clare, Conway

1 23 George III., ch. 8c.

'Jones, Hist. ofN. Y., ii, 266-268; Game's N. Y. Gazette, April 2, 1783.

* Can.Archs. (1894), 400.

* Ibid. (1894), 401, Parr to Townshend, Oct. 26, 1782; Lawrence, Footprints,
etc., p. 1-2.

6 Can. Archs. (1894), 403, April 23, 1783.

' Ibid. (1894), 404, 405, June 7, 10 and 24,1783; Murdock, Hist, of Nova
Scotia, iii, 23.

191] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS lgl

and Bear River. Passamaquoddy Bay and the coast east to the
St. John were divided by four surveyors, while one man did
the work at Newport, and another at Dartmouth.1 Prior to
April 10, 1784, this work had cost £1,838 more, and 1,000,-
OOO acres had been surveyed and divided into lots.2 It was
still in progress in November.3 The surveying was not ade
quate to the demand, and occasioned considerable discon
tent.4 Escheated estates5 and a quarter of the lands of the
Acadia Land Company were opened to settlers.6 There was
little uniformity in the size of grants. 7 The ordinary lot was
200 acres 8 for each individual, with an additional two hundred
acres for non-commissioned army officers, and fifty acres for
privates.? Carleton urged the granting of 5,000 acres to each
of fifty-five field officers, but the home government restricted
the number to i,ooo.10 Loyalists were exempt from fees and
quit-rents for ten years.11 By August 10, 1784, grants for
nearly 5,000 families, or 20,120 persons, had passed the seal,12
and others followed, until every loyalist had his farm. Lands
were granted as late as June 20, 1792. '3

Provisions for one year were supplied to loyalists when
they left New York, and upon reaching Nova Scotia they

I Can. Archs. (1894), 408, Oct. 21, 1783.

* Ibid, (i 894), 41 7; Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, Hi, 31.
3 Can. Archs. (1894), 427, Parr to Sydney, Nov. 15, 1784.

* Ibid. (1894), 4i?> April n and 16, 1784.

* Ibid. (1894), 407, Aug. 28, 1783.

* Ibid. (1894), 406, Aug. 8, 1783; ibid., 407, Sept. 23, 1783.

* Ibid. (1894), 407, Aug. 28, 1783.
•iKd. (,1895), 1 3> July 4, 1787-
'Ibid. (1894), 406, Aug. 8, 1783.
10 Ibid. (1894), 414, 416, 417, 418.

II Ibid. ( 1 894) , 406. " ibid. ( 1 894) , 423.

™ Ibid. C 1895), 27. In 1790 2000 acres were granted to Isaac Wilkins, 2600
acres to Major Philip Van Cortlandt, etc. Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 94.

192 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK r

were to be fed until the " instructions for granting lands"
could be carried out.1 In 1784, a few could care for them
selves, but the governor urged a continuation of food for the
needy.2 To prevent frauds and abuses a board was formed
to examine the claims of the loyalists for provisions ; 3 yet
it was reported on November 30, 1785, that 26,300 men,
women and children were still " entitled to provisions which
they fully merit."4 It was not until June of 1786 that
rations were cut off,5 but the action was not final, for as late
as September 22, 1792, relief was given to loyalists in dis
tress.6 Clothing, medicine, and other supplies, were also
furnished.7

General Carleton, in sending the refugees to Nova Scotia,
recommended that they be given " materials and artificers
for building."8 Governor Parr, without authority from home,
promised them boards for houses to the value of £1,000,9
and by February 4, 1784, lumber amounting in value to
£4,500 had been thus distributed.10 The supply stopped in
November of that year,11 after more than another £i9OOO had
been distributed in building materials.1" Nails, window glass,
shingles and bricks, and carpenter tools were also supplied.
The king ordered iron work for grist and saw-mills, tools
for the woods and farms, boats and tents and necessary im
plements of husbandry to the value of £5,500, to be sent out

I Can. Archs. (1894), 404-406, 408; cf. Lawrence, Footprints, etc., 1-2.
'2 Can. Archs. (1894), 413, 414, 416.

3 Ibid. ( 1 894) ,417, April 20, 1 784. * Ibid. ( 1 894) , 438.

5 Ibid* (1894), 443, 447. * Ibid. (1895), 27; New Brunswick Papers.

7 Raymond, The U. E. Loyalists, n.

8 Can. Archs. (1894), 401, Oct. 26, 1782; cf. Lawrence, Footprints, etc., p. 1-2.
* Can. Archs. (1894), 402, Jan. 15, 1783; Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 12.
^Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 19-23; Can. Archs. (1894), 413.

II Can. Archs. (1894), 427, Nov. 15, 1784.

« Ibid. (1894), 418, May I, 1784, (1895), 43.

1 9 3 ] TREA TMENT OF THE LO YALIS TS l r -,

and distributed among the loyalists.1 They were further as
sisted in agriculture with grains and seeds.2 " Many thou
sands of loyalists have taken refuge in the province, to whom
assistance has been given," wrote an officer.3 Although
there was some discontent,4 chiefly over the delay in sur
veys, the apportionments, and the various supplies, still
within two years what had been the wilds of Nova Scotia,
began to give evidence of a healthy civilization^ The peo
ple cleared and settled their lands, built their homes and
formed villages — " all seemingly happy and contented."6 On
January 2, 1785, Governor Parr wrote, " The loyalists are at
last contented and getting on exceedingly well in clearing
and cultivating their lands." ? And so well pleased was the
king with their prosperity, that he immediately ordered a
retrenchment in expenses.8 For surveys, lumber, tools and
seeds certainly not less than $100,000 had been spent.9
For transportation, clothing, provisions during at least two
and a half years, and governmental expenses, probably
$4,500,000 additional was required to make the colony pros
perous and self-supporting. About two-thirds of this expen
diture was in behalf of New York loyalists.

The treatment of loyalists in Canada after the treaty of
peace was similar to that which they experienced in Nova

1 Can. Archs. (1894), 411, (1895), 43; rf. Perley, Early Hist, of New
Bruns., 20.

«/. (1894), 412, Jan. 3, 1784. *Ibid. (1888), 578, May 20, 1783.

* Ibid. (1894), 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 419, 422, 423*424, 426, 429, 443, 447;
Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 29, 31.

* Can. Archs. (1894), 413, 414, 421, 427.

6 Ibid. ( 1 894) , 422, 426. " ibid. ( 1 894) , 450.

8 Ibid. (1894), 43i, March 8, 1785.

a By August n, 1784, the expenses for land grants and surveys alone amounted
to ;£IO»345- Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 33. Major Studholm spent
£6,721 for lumber and house building. Perley, Early Hist, of New Brunswick,
20. It is assumed that these figures were on a sterling basis.

1 94 L O YALISM IN NE W YORK [ j 94

Scotia. So far as possible, compensation was to be made in
land grants. In June, 1783, General Haldimand asked
Lord North about settlements for the loyalists. The Gov
ernor of Quebec received instructions about land grants
July 23, 1783.' Surveys began immediately and were
pushed forward with all possible speed.2 Eight townships
were surveyed in the neighborhood of Lake St. Francis, and
five more at Cataraqui, or Kingston.3 Other localities on the
Sorel, along the St. Lawrence, and on the northern shores
of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie were then plotted. There
was no absolute uniformity in the size of the grants, although
the general rule was to give every adult male and every
widow 200 acres.4 The provincial council in 1789 ordered
the land boards to grant 200 acres each to all sons and
daughters of loyalists " as they arrive to full age." 5 Loyalists
on the Sorel received 60 acres each and a town lot.6 Civil
and military officials were given larger grants.7 Stephen De-
Lancey received 1,000 acres,8 and Major Van Alstine, 1,200
acres.9 These lands were granted free from all expense.10
In upper Canada 3,200,000 acres were given loyalists who
settled there before 1787. About 730,000 acres went to
loyalist militiamen,11 450,000 to discharged soldiers and
sailors, 225,000 to magistrates and barristers, 136,000 to

I Can. Archs. (1885), 285.

*Ibid. (1885), 375. "It swelled the expense." Ibid. (1886), 414, 417.

* Ibid. (1885), 310; Kingsford, Hist, of Canada, vii, 218.

4Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 165; Can. Archs. (1886), 428,457, 585, 586.

* Ibid. (1890), 245, 250, Nov. 9, 1789; The United Empire Loyalist? CV«/«?«-
ns'a/(i884), 127-128.

* Can. Archs. (1887), 440, (1886), 426.

* Ibid. (1886), 427,428,457,585.

* Ibid. (1886), 428, May 24, 1784.

•Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 107. ™ Ibid., 165.

II All loyalists not otherwise designated were classed under this head.

195] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS ^

executive councillors, 50,000 to five legislative councillors,
37,000 to clergymen, 264,000 to surveyors and helpers,
500,000 for schools, 93,000 to officers of the army and navy,
and smaller tracts to prominent persons.1 Field officers re
ceived 5,000 acres, captains 3,000, subalterns 2,000, and
privates 200. Loyalist civilians were ranked with the dis
banded soldiers, according to their losses and to services
rendered.2 In 1798 the grants were limited to tracts varying
from 200 to 1,200 acres each. 3 At first grants were made
in lots of 200 acres each. They were numbered, the num
bers put in a hat and drawn out by the petitioners/ The
surveyor acted as land agent and wrote the names of owners
upon the map of the surveys.5 This democratic method was
denounced by the officers.6 In 1788 " many applications "
from people in the " States" were made for lands, and it was
estimated that 20,000 or 30,000 " who were attached to the
king's government " could be secured by inducements in land
grants. 7 Governor Simcoe, under this belief, issued a pro
clamation in 1792 inviting them to Canada, but he was
removed and his action nullified.8

By 1789 about 17,000 loyalists were settled above Mon
treal.' As soon as possible after surveys were made, loyal
ists were to be sent to settle the lands.10 The early arrivals
and the late-comers were to be treated alike.11 The only test
was loyalty.1'' During the spring of 1784 the officers were

I Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 176. 'l Ibid., 179. ; Ibid., 180.
* Can. Archs. (1885), 367» Nov. 18, 1783.

'Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 180. Many of these maps are preserved in
the Crown Land Department.

6 Can. Archs. (1886), 429, 431. ^ Hid., (1890), 218, 219.

8 Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 190. 9 Can. Archs. (1890), 236.

"Ibid. (1886), 410, Jan. 22, 1784, 412, 413.

II Ibid. (1886), 409, Dec. 29, 1783, 409, 421, 422. The soldiers, if any, were to
be shown preference, April 15, 1784.

"Ibid, (i 886), 422.

1 96 L O YA LISM IN NE W YORK [j 96

busy making out lists of those desiring lands.1 A
circular letter was sent to the loyalist leaders explaining the
condition of the lands and the character of the grants.2
Some petitioned to settle on Missisquoi Bay, but the request
was refused for the public good, because of fear of trouble
with the United States.3 Loyalists were permitted to settle
on seigniories, though crown lands were recommended.4
The movement towards the new settlement began in March,
1784,5 and on April 16, the order was sent forth " That the
whole of the loyalists must move at once to their settle
ments."6 In May removal was well under way from all
points toward the west,7 and by July they were drawing lots
and locating on their lands.8 Of the eight townships situ
ated above Lake St. Francis, those numbered from one to
five were settled by 1,462 of the King's Royal Regiment of
New York, and those from six to eight by 495 of Jessup's
Corps. Of the five townships at Cataraqui Captain Grass*
party of 187 took the first, 434 of Jessup's Corps the second,
310 of the King's Royal Regiment of New York and Major
Rogers with 299 the third, Major Van Alstine with 258
and some of Roger's men the fourth, and 303 soldiers of
various regiments part of the fifth. This made a total of
about 3,800 single men and heads of families.9 At Lachine,
Montreal, Chambly, St. Johns, the Bay of Chaleurs, on the
Sorel, and at other places, were located enough loyalist set-

1 Can. Archs. (1886), 411, 412, 413.

"• Ibid. (1886), 414, March 4, 1784. 3 Ibid. (1886), 462, 463.

* Ibid. (1886), 411, 414, (1888), 710.

* Ibid, (i 886), 41 6, 417.

* Ibid. (1886), 420, 421, (1888), 957, 958.

7 Ibid. (1886), 424, 425, 426, 432, 462, (1887), 439, 440-

* Ibid. (1887), 164, 226. The provincial troops were located in corps as much
as possible. Ibid. (1886), 422.

*Ibid. (1888), 753, July, 1784, (1891), 5.

TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS lgy

tiers to raise the number, by October, 1784, to 5,628.'
Counting those who were at Niagara,2 on Lake Erie, in the
cities, on seigniories,3 in Lower Canada, and those who came
later, the total would reach at least 20,000 and probably
25,ooo.4 Being forced to " actually sit down upon their lots,"5
huts were immediately built by the settlers, and in a few
years were replaced by comfortable houses.6 The settle
ment of the loyalists was still in progress in 1790.?

The homeless and landless exiles, defeated and at the
mercy of Great Britain, were fed, clothed and housed until a
distribution of land could be made.8 When the war closed
3,204 " unincorporated loyalists" were receiving rations,
beds and blankets.9 Although the Canadian officials had no
instructions to continue these supplies after the war, still they
did so.10 The English government approved of the action,
ordered rations to be furnished to the needy and sent over
articles of use and comfort to them.11 For the sake of
economy and to prevent frauds, all orders for supplies in
upper and lower Canada were signed by the agents.12 Allow
ances were made only to those who settled on crown lands.13
Although loyalists were welcomed from the " States " after

1 Can. Archs. (1888), 753, 754, (1891), 17.

2 Ibid. (1891), i. * Ibid. (1888), 845.

4 Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 636. July 20, 1784, 620 loyalists petitioned
for land at Niagara. Can. Archs. (1881), 2-5.

5 Can. Archs. (1886), 418, April 15, 1784.

* Ibid. (1888), 718, 719, (1885), 352, 354, 367, 368.

^ Ibid. (1890), 245; ibid. (1883), 71, Sept. 16, 1791.
*Ibid. (1892), 419, Jan. 21, 1783, (1886), 409.

9 Kingsford, Hist, of Canada, vii, 218.

10 Can. Archs. (1888), 731, (1887), no. 91.

11 Ibid. (1885), 286, April 8, 1784, 354, (1886), 409, Jan. 5, 1784, 411, Jan. 19,
1784.

"Ibid. (1886), 409, Dec. 29, 1783, and Jan. 5, 1784.

* Ibid, (i 886), 423.

! 98 LO YALISM IN NE W YORK [ T 98

1784, they were not entitled to provisions.1 The king's in
structions forbade the liberal " privileges granted to those in
Nova Scotia," but the royal agent was resolved to " grant all
indulgences possible" and to beg the ministry for more.2
The practice was adopted of feeding the loyalists until they
could support themselves.3 In June 1/85, 6,000 were still
victualed for a year,4 and in 1787 loyalists still petitioned
for three months' provisions.5 Some of the distressed were
aided as late as September, 1791, when it was proposed to
set aside certain lands " for the permanent support of dis
tressed loyalists " and for those whose claims for compensa
tion were not allowed.6

In addition to food, clothing and blankets were given to
the loyalists. Supplies of this character were granted in
1783 at various points,7 asked for on all sides the next year8
and generously given.9 As late as June, 1787, clothing was
still asked for and granted.10 "Clothing" here includes
coarse cloth for trousers, Indian blankets for coats, hats and
shoes.11

The first work before the loyalists was to build homes,
clear the land and cultivate small plots. In these lines
the government rendered valuable and generous assistance.
Some planks, bricks and nails were given out for houses.12

I Can. Archs. (1886), 423, 429. The loyalists sent from England to Upper
Canada were also "entitled to indulgences." Ibid. (1890), 321.

*Hnd. (1886), 350, 411, 426, May 14, 1784, (^1892), 431* (1894), 403.
* Ibid. (1886), 409, 422, 430, 431, 434, 437, 438, 442, 443, 456, 459, (1887),
164, (1888), 718, 719.

« Ibid. ( 1 890) ,159. 6 Ibid. ( 1 890) ,187. 6 Ibid. ( 1 890) , 304.

1 1bid. (1886), 467, (1888), 956. *Ibid. (1888), 718, 719.

9 Ibid. (1886), 409, 423, 427, 429, 430, June 3, 1784, 439.
"Ibid. (1890), 187.

II Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 190.
12 Can. Archs. (1886), 463, 433.

199] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS

The loyalists asked for tools, and the request was readily
granted,1 although pronounced extravagant.2 By July 26,
1784, tools arrived and the loyalists went to work3 and
from that time on they were distributed until all were sup
plied.4 " An axe, a hoe, a spade and a plow" were " allot
ted to every two families ; a whip and cross-cut saw to every
fourth family." To every five families a set of carpenter's
tools was given. Pick-axes and sickles were also supplied.5
Bateaux were placed at their disposal,6 and grindstones,7
corn-mills,8 grist-mills 9 and saw-mills 10 were furnished. At
first arms were refused, but later some guns were distributed
among the settlers " for the messes, for the pigeon and wild
fowl season." n

To complete their outfits they were given seeds in consid
erable variety for the garden and farm.1- These were sent
out for distribution as late as November, i/SS.13 It was not
intended, at first, to give them live stock,14 but the resolve
was soon changed, and one cow was allotted to every two
families.15 But it was very difficult to secure an adequate

1 Can. Archs. (1886), 391, 414, 416, 423, 433.

2 find. (1886), 417, no. 157.

*Ibid. (1886), 437, 439, 441, 446, (1887), 165.

'Ibid. (1885), 357, Aug. 6, 1784, (1886), 427, 428, 463.

6Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 190; Can. Archs. (1888), 958.

*Ibid. (1886), 427, 435. T Ibid. (1886), 426.

"Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 190.

9 Can. Archs. (1886), 447, (1887), 263, 265, 266.

"Ibid. (1886), 428, 433. » Ibid. (1886), 419, 427, 463.

"Ibid. (1886), 391, 416, 423, 433, 437, 439, (1887), 164; ibid. (1886),
417, 420,428, (1888), 957, 958; ibid. (1891), i; ibid. (1890), 305; ibid. (1886),
429, 437, 441, 446, 462, 463, (1887), 165.

" Ibid. (1890), 222.

14 Ibid. (1886;, 391, 414, 416, 423, 433.

™ Ibid. (1886), 462, 463; Caniff, Hist, oj Prov. of Ontario, 190.

2 OO L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK

2 OO

number.1 Bulls were supplied for neighborhoods.'2 Hay was
furnished for the cattle.3 In a few years, however, the farms
were well cleared, yielded good crops, and live stock became
plentiful. At first there had been considerable discontent,4
and numerous and angry cries for relief were raised, but as
the early hardships wore away, the people became comfort
able and prosperous, and even boastful of their early sacri
fices for loyalty to king and empire.5 Before the Canadian
loyalists were established on a self-supporting basis perhaps
$4,000,000 had been expended in surveys, official salaries,
clothing, food, tools and stock.

Lord Dorchester, formerly Sir Guy Carleton, requested
the council of Quebec " to put a marke of honor upon the
families who adhered to the unity of the empire, and joined
the royal standard in America before the treaty of separa
tion in the year I783/'6 Therefore all loyalists of that de
scription and their descendants were " to be distinguished by
the letters U. E. affixed to their names, alluding to their
great principle, the unity of the empire."7 A registry of
these U. E. loyalists was ordered to be kept.8 For a period
of over twenty years names were added to the list,9 and the

1 Can. Arc/is. (1888), 720. At Cataraqui and Oswagatia a population of over
1000 had but 6 horses, 8 oxen and 18 cows.

2 Ibid. (1886), 434- 3 Ibid. (1886) , 427, 428, 463.

^ Ibid. (1886% 391, 414, 423, 425, (1889), 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 78, (1883), 204,
(1887), 164, 441. Some even deserted and returned to the United States. Ibid.
(1886), 41 1.

* The commissioners who went to Canada to examine loyalists' claims said the
people were flourishing and apparently satisfied. This was in the report of Jan.
24, 1788. MS. Transcript . . Books and Papers of . . American Loyalists, vol.
2, p. 333, etc.

6 The United Empire Loyalists' Centennial, (1884), 127-128.

7 Can. Archs. (1890), 245.

*1bid. (1890), 250; The United Empire Loyalists'1 Centennial, (1884), 127-128.
9 Can. Archs. (1892), 386, Min. of Oct. 28, 1807; cf. ibid. (1883), 206; cf.
Caniff, Hist, of Prov. of Ontario, 156.

20 1 ] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS 2OI

descendants of these hardy pioneers have taken great pride
in continuing the title.

The claims of the wealthy loyalists could not be satisfied
by lands. They demanded compensation in money. In
part their claims were offset by lucrative offices. Rev.
Charles Inglis was made bishop of Nova Scotia.1 Sir John
Johnson was made superintendent-general of the settling of
the loyalists.2 Beverly Robinson, Jr., Christopher Billopp,
Isaac Wilkins and Abraham de Peyster were appointed to
civil offices in New Brunswick.3 Abraham Cuyler wished
to be inspector of lands for Cape Breton.4 William Smith
became chief justice of upper Canada.5 Gabriel G. Ludlow
was first councillor, mayor and judge of St. John.6 Colonel
Edward Fanning was made lieutenant governor of Nova
Scotia.7 Many of the loyalists were appointed justices of
the peace.8 Brook Watson secured a royal office for Chris
topher Sower in New Brunswick.9 The loyalist military
officers were put on half pay, and in 1806 one hundred and
ten were still on the pay-roll.10

From the time Cooper and Chandler fled to England in
1775 to escape revolutionary mobs in New York until peace
was concluded, loyalists had found refuge there. Many,

1 Can.Archs. (1883), 52> (1894), 403, 405, 407, 443, 447, 452, 454, 456, 461,
465.

*Ibid. (1783), 57, 71, (1886), 426,463,482, (1887), 163.

:< Ibid. (1895), J7» !9, (1894), 467. *lbid. (1895), 23-

5 MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. n,
p. 78.

6 Lawrence, Footprints of New Brunswick, 10-12.

7 MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. 17,
P-95-

8 Murdock, Hist, of Nova Scotia, iii, 30.

9 New Brunswick Mag., i, 97.

10 Can.Archs. (1892), 375~377- Lis* given. Cf. ibid. (1886;, 431, 432; Par
liamentary Register, vol. 35, p. 209.

202 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [ 2O2

U

with their wives and families, were sent to Great Britain in
1778. There was a general exodus thither of civil officers,
of those too old or infirm to bear arms, of " great numbers"
of clergy who had become obnoxious, of those who wished to
be neutral, and of many of the wives and children of loyalists
who were serving in the army or navy.1 Subsequent to i/75»
allowances were granted these loyalists from time to time as
temporary support until the war should end, when it was ex
pected that all would return to their country. These sums
were paid by the treasury board, without uniformity as to
time or amount, at first quarterly and later annually.2 The
amounts thus granted increased yearly until by 1782 more
than $200,000 was paid to 315 recipients. Besides these
allowances for temporary support, $90,000 had been paid
during each of the three years preceding 1782 as compen
sation for special losses or services. Many of these pen
sioners came from New York and received annuities ranging
from £500, which was paid to Oliver De Lancey and his
family, to .£20, which Thomas Moore obtained. Some of
them, like Dr. Myles Cooper, had received help for seven
years.3 In 1782 twenty-six loyalists from New York were
receiving about $18,000 yearly.

1 Wilmot, Historical View of the Commissioners for Enquiring into the Losses
. . of . . Loyalists. 8, 9.

* /bid., 15, 1 6, 22. These sums and those which follow in this chapter are ob
tained by reckoning the pound as approximately $5.00 ($4.86).

8 Chief among the pensioners from New York were Timothy Hurst, ^"200; Sam
uel Bayard, £200; John Tabor Kempe, £ 200; Rev. John Vardill,j£ 200; Samuel
Hoke,j£2oc; Isaac Wilkins, £200; William Bayard, £200; William Edmeston,
£150; Lambert Moore, £115; Col. Abraham Cuyler,^ioo; Rev. Harry Munroe,
j£ico; Lieut. Thomas Webb, £100; Robert Auchmuty, j£ioo, Samuel Kemble,
j£ico; Peter Van Schaack, £ 100 ; Richard Vandeburg, £100; John Pickering,
^80; Francis Stephens, ,£80 ; John Blockler, £60; and Matthew Sends, £50.
MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of Americam Loyalists, vol. 2, pp.
72, 74, 80, 82, 84, 86, 94, 96,98, 100, 102, 106, 108, no, 112, 114, 116, 120, 122,
126, 128, 132, 134, 136.

203] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS 2O3

The increased emigration of loyalists to England in 1782,
and consequently the large number of claims for assistance,
led parliament to suspend all donations until a committee
could investigate both the old and the new claims, and pass
on their merits. The committee dropped 81 persons from
the list, thus reducing the existing annual grant of $200,000
to $158,500, and considered 428 new claims, on which they
allowed over $87,000, making the total grant for 1783
$245,725.' Of the 428 fresh claims 223, or more than half,
came from New York alone. Only twenty-five applications
were refused.2 No new grant was made above £200, and
from that amount grants fell off to £5. Loyalty, actual loss
and need were made the reason for assistance. Over $5,000
were paid to finally settle many claims of loyalists from New
York, and about $35,000 were allowed them in annuities.
With but few exceptions, these claimants were all resident in
England. Among them were representatives of all social
classes, from emancipated negro slaves 3 to the aristocratic
land-owners 4 and merchants,5 of both sexes,6 of all ages and

1 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 16-23; Can. Archs. (1886), 480, 482, 552.

* Refusal was on the ground of " no claim," or because the claimant was not in
need of help. John Tabor Kempetook ^"14,000 with him to England, yet asked
for aid, but was refused it.

3 John Ashfield, Thomas Fanner, John Jackson, David King, John Thompson
and Benjamin Whitecuff.

* John Gumming, James McCara, Archibald Kennedy, Claude Saubier, Christo
pher Billopp, William Knox, John Rapalje, etc.

5 Thomas Hughes, Thomas Miller, William Bayard who lost ,£100,000, Col.
Cruger, John Weatherhead, Alexander Wallace, V. P. Ashfield, William Axtill,
Isaac Low, Benjamin Booth.

6 Mrs. Auchmuty, wife of the Trinity rector, Mrs. and Miss Dawson, Mrs. Jessup,
Mrs. McAlpin, Mrs. Norman, Mrs. Paschall, Mrs. Catherine Ridout, Mrs. Mary
Swards, Nelly Malloy, the Misses Kemp, Mrs. Mary Smith, Mrs. Mary Airy, Miss
Eliz. Floyd, Mrs. Henrietta Golden, Mrs. Mary Browne, Mrs. Price, Mrs. Col. Fred.
Phillips, Elizabeth Brinley, Mrs. Mary Henley, Elizabeth Macdonald, Mrs. Eliza
beth Lawrence, Elizabeth McAlpin and Miss Jane Sidney.

2 04 LOYA LISM IN NE W YORK [204

of all trades and professions — soldiers, sailors, teachers,
wine-merchants, brewers, clergymen,1 lawyers, physicians,
crown officers,2 flax dressers, silver-smiths, farmers and
shop-keepers.

" Numberless persons" flocked to England after the treaty
of peace, mostly from New York, to secure compensation.3
Altogether 5,072 loyalists, representing perhaps 25,000 per
sons in all, either in person or through agents, submitted
claims for losses.4 These loyalists had a general agent ap
pointed for each state. James DeLancey acted for New
York, and also served as agent for the whole " committee."5
The claims examined by the " commissioners" in England,
by June 10, 1789, numbered 939, and by commissioners in
Nova Scotia and Canada i,272.6 Others were withdrawn, or
not pressed for settlement, or dropped without consideration.

The king urged parliament to treat the loyalists with " a
due and generous attention," and hence that body, in July,
1783, appointed a " commission " of five members to classify
the " losses and services of those who had suffered in their
rights, properties and professions on account of their loy
alty." The commissioners were empowered to examine
persons under oath, send for papers, and use the testimony
of loyalists in England and America to determine the valid-

1 Rev. John Doty, rector at Schenectady, Rev. John Mackenna, a Roman Cath
olic priest, Rev. Agnew, Dr. Charles Inglis, Rev. John Milner and Rev. Samuel
Seabury.

'-' Stephen DeLancey, Judge Thomas Jones who lost ,£44,600; Colonel James
DeLancey, sheriff of Westchester; John Tabor Kempe, attorney general of
New York, who lost ^98,000; George D. Ludlow, judge of the Supreme Court,
who lost £7000; David Matthew, mayor of New York city, who lost 26,774 acres;
Arthur Kendall,' tide surveyor of New York; Andrew Elliott, lieutenant-gov
ernor of New York; Philip Skene, lieutenant-governor of Crown Point, who lost

1 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 25-28,

4 Kingsford, History of Canada, vii, 217; Jones, Hist, of N. ¥., ii, 663.

5 Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 257-258. * Ibid., 661.

205] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS 205

ity of claims. Most of the loyalists were frank and honest
in their statements, but some were not.1

The " commission" first laid down rules of procedure and
then began their inquiry in October.2 Loyalists were by
them divided into six classes, i. Those who had rendered
services to Great Britain. 2. Those who had borne arms
against the revolution. 3. Uniform loyalists. 4. Loyalists
resident in Great Britain. 5. Those who took oaths of alle
giance to the American states, but afterward joined the
British. 6. Those who armed with the Americans and later
joined the English army or navy. Claimants had to state
specifically in writing the nature of their losses.3 So strict
were the rules and so rigid were the secret examinations
that the " Enquiry " was denounced by the loyalists as the
"inquisition."4 All claims were to be in by March 25, 1784,
but the time was later extended till 1790.5 On the first date
2,063 claims were presented, representing a loss of about
$35,231,000 in real and personal property, $ 1 1,770,000 in
debts, and $445,000 in incomes, making a total of nearly
$47,500,000.°

The examination of these claims was no easy task — es
pecially such claims as those of the DeLanceys. The board
refused to allow compensation for losses in East and West

1 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 42-47. The " Compensation Act" is 23 Geo.
///., ch. 80. Given in Jones, Hist, of N. Y., ii, 653; Parliamentary Register,
vol. 35, p. 205.

'Notices had been sent to the governors of Canada and Nova Scotia, to the com
mander at New York, and printed in the newspapers.

"Can iff, Hist, of Prov. oj Ontario, 6l. Case of Aspden, p. 119, gives report to
commissioners, May 30, 1 788, and has 1 1 classes.

4 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 65.

* Ibid., 89; 29 George III., ch. 62; Jones, Hist, of N. K, ii. 658-659; 25
George III., ch. 76; 26 George III., ch. 68; 27 George III., ch. 39; 2<? George
III., ch. 40.

' Wilmot, Historical Vieiv, etc., 50.

206 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [2o6

Florida, or in the form of uncultivated lands, estates bought
after the war, rents, incomes of offices received during the re
bellion, anticipated professional profits ; losses in trade, labor,
or by the British army ; losses through depreciated paper
money, captures at sea and debts. Claims were allowed for
loss of property through loyalty, for offices held before the
the war, and for the loss of actual professional incomes. By
July, 1784, claims amounting to $2,675,000 were settled for
the sum of $1,010,000.' Next the claims of 1068 persons
needing immediate relief were considered, and by December
23, 128 of these claims, aggregating $3,446,000, were paid
off for the sum of $755,000. In May and July, 1785, 122
claimants, asking for $4,500,000, were granted $1,283,000.* .
A fifth report, made in April, 1786, allowed $1,252,500 for
142 claims, aggregating $3,666,500.3 By April 5, 1788, the
commissioners had examined 1,680 claims on which they
allowed $9,448,000.

It was soon evident that, to do justice to the loyalists,
commissioners must be sent to America. Hence Colonels
Dundee and Pemberton were sent to Nova Scotia, while
John Anstey went to New York.4 They were to inquire into
the claims of loyalists, and thus relieve them of the neces
sity of going to England. They had the same powers as
the board at home and proceeded in the same manner.
Their work began November 17, 1785, and lasted till 1789.
The various governors were apprised of this arrangement
and General Haldimand, governor of Canada, was instructed

1 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 50. * Ibid., 54~55-

s Ibid., 59. The commissioners met in London from Aug. 9, 1785, to March
25, 1790, and examined the claims of loyalists. The MS. Transcript . . of Books
and Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. 9, has the minutes of the proceedings
of the commissioners. The minutes are bare and meagre, however.

4 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 58; Can. Archs. (1890), 169, Feb. 10, 1786;
25 George III., ch. 76; MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American
Loyalists, vol. 2, 35.

20/] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS 2O/

to co-operate with them by sending in loyalists' petitions.1
Governor Hope of Quebec issued a proclamation, January
21, 1785, to loyalists having claims for losses, and ordered
their leaders to collect and forward them. He asked the
commissioners for an extension of time in which to prove
losses, and urged them to make a journey to Quebec.2 Gov
ernor Patterson also demanded an extension of time for the
loyalists of Prince Edward Island.3 The commissioners in
tended to go from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick and Canada
to expedite matters. They sat at Halifax, St. Johns and
Montreal.

The examinations began at Halifax,4 Claims under the
act of parliament of 1783 were first considered.5 Some
loyalists from the United States appeared before the com
missioners, hoping for compensation amounting to about
$24,000, for losses which resulted from loyal service, but
their claims were invariably rejected. On June 10, 1786, the
commissioners reported that 642 claims had been presented
from Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, the Island of St. John and
the United States, of which 199 were approved. Also 402
new claims from New Brunswick and 716 from Canada had
been sent in. The losses examined amounted to $335,000.
A second report was made September 30, 1786, submitting a
list of forty old claimants and sixty-four new ones, mostly
from Nova Scotia. Before the third report was made, March

1 Can.Archs. (1886), 480, Haldimand to Watts, Jan. 6, 1783, 555; Comsrs. to
Haldimand, Sept. 4, 1784; ibid. (1890), 168; ibid. (1895), 43-
* Ibid. (1890), 1 68, Jan. 29, 1785.

s Ibid., 43; MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American
Loyalists, vol. 2, 351.

4 Expresses were sent to Canada, New Brunswick, Cape Breton, St. Johns Island,
and to Governor Parr, of Nova Scotia, to say that the work had commenced.

J Some were passed on at once while others, for various reasons, were delayed
from one day to one year.

208 LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [2O8

26, 1787, the commissioners had gone by land from Halifax
to St. John, where they heard no old claims and 239 new
ones. Thence they went to Quebec and Montreal, where
they examined the 716 claims sent to Halifax, 77 old claims
and 300 new ones, and reported January 24, 1788. In June
of that year, a report was made on 356 additional cases. The
sixth and final report was made after they returned to Eng
land. It reviewed the whole work and showed that twenty-
five inhabitants of the United States had sent in claims, that
432 claims under the act of 1783, calling for $3,375,000, and
1799 claims under the act of 1785, asking for $3,536,000,
were filed; that altogether 1401 claims were heard and 834
were for various reasons not heard. The commissioners
allowed $1,061,000 on the 432 old claims and $1,684,000 on
969 new claims, or a total of $2,745,000 for claims passed
on in America.1

Of the 1401 claims examined by the two commissioners,
877, or nearly two-thirds, were those of New York loyalists.2
About two-thirds of the $6,91 1,000 claimed for losses and of
the $2,745,000 allowed by the commissioners were also in
behalf of the loyalists from that state. A reference to a few
of the petitioners will sufficiently illustrate the character of
the whole. Stephen Tuttle was a justice of the peace of Al
bany county, and joined the British in Canada. He was
proscribed, and his property, valued at £2,539, was confis
cated. He did not bear arms himself, but his five sons went
into the British service.3 Thomas Barclay, of Ulster county,

'MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. 2,
333; Case of Aspden, 119, gives the report also. The 34 MS. vols. in the Cong.
Lib. at Washington contain the Proceedings of the two commissioners at St. John,
Halifax and Montreal, in 1786-1788.

1 MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists, vol.
10, p. 253-378.

3 Ibid., vol. 17, p. 1-18. Nearly every claimant reported a loss of both personal
and real property.

209] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS

left in 1776 to avoid taking up arms against his king, and for
six years held the rank of major of loyalist troops. He re-
ported that both his personal and real property was confis
cated and sold in the fall of 1776 — the first confiscation in
New York. He lost £2,745.' Isaac Wilkins, a representa
tive of Westchester in the general assembly, went to England
for a year, in 1775, after which he returned, and lived on
Long Island. For six years he received an annual pension
of £200. Although able to sell his property at Westchester
for £2,500, still he claimed a loss of £3,600. Because of his
brother's influence, he was not attainted.2

The " determinations on claims " by the commissioners in
America began December 5, 1785, and closed December 19,
1788. The commissioners in each case considered three
things— loyalty, service, extent of loss— and fixed the allow
ance accordingly. Loyalists padded their claims with en
tries of every kind of loss.3 The policy of the commission
ers was to refuse to allow claims for lands bought or
improved during the war — a very long list — trading ships
lost through capture by Americans, horses and grain taken
by Americans, damage done by British or Hessian troops,

!MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of the American Loyalists vol
17,24-31,38.

* Ibid., 38-56. One of the remarkable things about these loyalist claims is the
fact that few came from southern New York, especially Queens county, the very
center of loyalism. Out of 466 petitions 155 were from Albany co., 85 from
Westchester co., 80 from Tryon co., 50 from Dutchess co., 46 from Charlotte co.,
15 from New York city, 9 from Orange co., n from Ulster co., 7 from Queens
co., 3 from Cumberland co., 3 from Richmond co. and 3 from Suffolk co. Kings
county had no claimants. In other words, from the very stronghold of loyal-
ism, southern New York, there were but 27 loyalist petitioners, as compared with
439 above New York city. This astonishing difference was due to the fact that
the loyalists of southern New York lost comparatively little through their loyalty
because protected by the British until peace was signed, when most of them either
remained on their lands unmolested, or were able to dispose of their property be
fore emigrating. Ibid., 1 7 to 22.

3 Ibid., vol. 29, p. 9.

2 1 o L ° YALISM IN NE W YORK r2 I o

forage and stock furnished the British army,1 rent of lands,
houses and goods used by the British,2 crops on the ground,
certain debts, the fall in value of provincial paper money, rob
bery of cash, runaway negroes,3 cost of living in New York
city during the war, fines paid for refusing to drill with the
militia, houses built during the war,4 expenses and sufferings
in prison, property mortgaged to its full value, losses or suf
fering after the war, uncultivated lands, defective titles, and
losses of persons who were not Americans before 1775.
" Loyal" and " bore arms " made a strong case and invaria
bly led to compensation for property, real and personal,
which was lost by confiscation.5 Claimants were obliged to
prove clear titles and positive loss. In some instances im
provements on tenant farms were allowed.6 The loss of the
incomes of physicians,7 lawyers,8 clergymen,9 and from civil
offices which were held before the revolution, was compen
sated. Every effort was made to be fair, and to do justice
to all. When judgment was rendered the commissioners
strongly urged immediate liquidation of claims. Many loy
alists, like Hugh Wallace, William Bayard, Sir John Johnson,
and Stephen DeLancey, who had large fortunes at stake,
went directly to England to adjust their claims.10 After the

1 MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . oj the American Loyalists, vol.
29, p. 12.

2 Ibid., 13. 3 Ibid., 77, 157. 4 Ibid., 37. 5 Ibid., 47, 97-

B Ibid., vol. 30, pp. 117, 245. Out of 126 petitioners to the crown for compen
sation for losses incurred through loyalty, 115 asserted their loyalty from first to
last, while only 6 acknowledged themselves whigs at first, and but 5 confessed to
having signed the association. Nearly every petitioner tried to prove first that he
had served in the British army in one capacity or another, and next that he suffered
personal injury for his loyalty. Out of 150 who saw military service, 62 were
imprisoned for their beliefs, 9 were attainted and I had had his property burned.
Ibid., vols. 17-23.

i Ibid., vol. 29, p. 29, 61. *Ibid., 63. * Ibid., 105.

^Can.Archs. (1886), 482, 554.

2 1 1 ] TREA TMENT OF THE LO Y A LISTS 2 I I

commissioners left America, petitions were still sent to Eng
land, asking for payment of losses.1

The " board of commissioners," now all in England, made
the twelfth and last report on May 15, 1789.* Altogether
5,072 claims were presented, and for a total of $50,411,000,
but only 4,118 claims were examined. Of this number 343
were not allowed, 553 were not prosecuted, and 38 were
withdrawn ; the claims included in these 934 cases amount
ing to $10,000,000. Of the $40,411,000 asked for by the
3,184 claimants who remained, over $19,000,000 was
paid.3 At first loyalist soldiers were allowed 40 per cent, of
their claims, while civilians got but 30 per cent., though
finally no difference was made.4 From time to time partial
payments were made on claims allowed, but Pitt's scheme
was finally carried into effect by the 28th, George III, Ch.
40, and gave general satisfaction.5 It provided that incomes
below £400 should be paid off in pensions at 50 per cent.,
between £400 and £1,500 at 40 per cent., and above £1,500
at 30 per cent.6 British subjects resident in England were
to receive property losses in full up to £10,000, 80 per cent,
of losses above that sum up to £50,000, 50 per cent, above
the £10,000 on losses between £50,000 and £200,000 and
30 per cent, above the £10,000 on losses over £200,000. All
other classes of loyalists were to be paid the full sum allowed
by the commissioners up to £10,000, 90 per cent, of amounts
above that sum up to £35,000, 85 per cent, above £10,000
on losses between £35,000 and £50,000 and So per cent,
above £10,000 on losses exceeding £50,000. 7

1 Can.Archs. (1894), 462. At least as late as March 18, 1789.

1 Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 59-89; cf. Caniff, Hist. ofProv. of Ontario, 61.

* Cf. Kingsford, Hist, of Can., vii, 217, note; Wilmot, Historical View, etc., 64.

*>Ibid., 58. * Ibid., 69-78.

*Ibid.; cf. Jones, Hist, of N. Y.. ii, 659.

7 Case of A spdcn< 121,122.

212 LO YALISM IN NE W YORK [ 2 1 2

The loyalists of New York figured very prominently in
the compensation. Their property losses, as set forth in
their claims, approximated to $10,000,000, or about one-
fourth of the whole amount. The petitions for imperial
compensation ranged from $60, claimed by Agnes Bethune,
to $777,000, which was the estimated value of the confis
cated estate of Frederick Philipse, Jr. The sums allowed
varied in amount from $50, granted to Agnes Bethune, to
$221,000, the highest sum, paid to Sir John Johnson. The
proportion of the compensation to the claim for loss differed
very much and was conditioned upon the character of each
case. Some were thrown out entirely because " fraudulent,"
or because there was " no proof of the loss," and none
were allowed in full.1 The claims for losses included both

1 On one claim for $1545 the commissioners allowed $1540. The character of
the reductions may be learned from the following table giving the principal claims
and the amounts allowed :

Name. Loss. Allowed.

Frederick Philipse, Jr $777,000 $210,000

Sir John Johnson 516,000 221,000

Oliver DeLancey 39°>oo° 125,000

William Bayard 326,000 97,000

John Tabor Kempe 325>oo° 28,000

Beverly Robinson 344>°°° 1 28,000

Roger Morris 310,000 91,000

James DeLancey 284,000 160,000

C. W. Apthorp 144,000 io,coo

Thomas Lynch 111,000 1,250

John Rapalje 106,000 53>°°°

Philip Skene 188,000 109,000

John Weatherhead 152,000 19,000

Hugh Wallace 86,000 20,000

John Peters 54>ooo 10,000

David Golden 51*000 14>°°°

Alexander MacDonald 66,000 4,000

John Munro 50,000 9,000

Guy Johnson 1 1 1,000 34>°°°

Thomas Jones 63,000 28,000

213] TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS 2I3

personal and real estate. Since not more than a dozen loy
alists from New York were allowed more than £10,000 by
the commissioners, practically all sums granted were paid in
full.

Of the $400,000 allowed by the commissioners for losses
in annual incomes from offices and professions loyalists from
this state were granted $56,000." The crown paid about
$79,000 in yearly pensions on these losses and of that sum
loyalists from New York received in annual grants $40,000,
or more than one-half of the total amount.

The total outlay on the part of England, during the war
and after it closed, for the loyalists, in food and clothing, in
temporary relief and annuities, in establishing them in Nova
Scotia and Canada, and in money compensation, amounted
to not less than ' $30,000,000. At least one-third of this
sum, and possibly more, was paid to loyalists from New
York, or spent in their behalf. The slow, sifdng process of

Isaac Low 75,ooo 26,000

James Jauncey 65,000 52,000

Ebenezer Jessup 1 10,000 1 8,000

Edward Jessup 54,000 20,000

George Folliott 66,000 21,000

Brant Children 92,000 34,000

Daniel Glaus 88,000 32,000

John Butler 48,000 27,000

Christopher Billopp 26,000 2,000

Robert Bayard 55»ooo I>55°

William Axtell 85,000 47,000

Mary Auchmuty 25,000 8,oco

Other claims were paid off in like ratio. MS. Transcript . . of Books and
Papers . . of American Loyalists, vol. 1 1, p. 78, etc.

1 Chief among the claimants were Andrew Elliott, $6,500; Rev. Charles Inglis,
$2,295; Jonn Tabor Kempe, $10,170; William Smith, $11,500 : Philip Skene,
$2,500; Rev. John Vardill, $2,500; Major Thomas Barclay, $1,000; and G. D.
Ludlow, $1,000. MS. Transcript . . of Books and Papers . . of American
Loyalists, vol. 1 1, p. 78, etc. The total yearly loss of professional salaries was
j£8o,ooo, on which ,£25,785 was granted in pensions.

214 LOYA LISM IN NE W YORK [2 1 4

compensation, and the enormous reductions from the orig
inal claims, gave rise to widespread discontent. Numerous
pamphlets appeared, and letters were printed in the journals
denouncing the methods of the "Enquiry," and the unap-
preciative, close-fisted policy of the English government.
But as time passed the bitterness disappeared, and the loy
alists were proud of the fact that loyalism meant a sacrifice
in material possessions, as well as fidelity to the king and
the empire.

APPENDIX

THESE lists of confiscated property are as complete as
the known material warrants. No doubt additional matter
will be found when all the available manuscript sources of
the revolutionary history of the state are brought to light.
The lists are complete for the city and county of New York
and for Suffolk county in the southern district. No complete
record of the sales in Queens, Kings and Richmond coun
ties has been found. The arrangement followed here is not
found in the manuscripts, but is used in order to secure uni
formity and to condense the material.

215] 215

216

APPENDIX

Description and R

1

TJ 0

1$

*L

3 <L» 10

O Q *^

a-g

o Sr™

Q § S

£8

i

•<-• D

rt >
« >,

oc/5

H

c/a

tn

ow" fc
^w"

^ i "^ . ^ •— < «< r/^

8w

8 8

u-> t^

O O

o 10

t^ t^

u

<U
O

§•8

— >

3 I

**i u

^

o . O)

-

at

00

APPENDIX

[218

^TJ
£ -t->
rt fi

OJ -t-

a

o

c'5

219]

APPENDIX

* • j2 Ql cS cJ hpi

* S - .- pq E

~w C

nd

|i Mil t

th
re
ttl
by

6^^|3Z"§

4D v_ ^

^-^W <U

.r^fyjiw

•Ill-^ag1"

fHBgall

ro ^3 <u o cs ^

-p.^Z b^S^-H

o vT^^

S

j^i w
^^= ^^1^^^

?* ^ U3 ^ !> ^ rt

d

ig
a

j

^ PQ

>si3

5 1 S-g-a^;

o "o xi "o.^3 "o ^ •

J ^ J

**§«-a*»1

0> ^ o^>

c^^

••-i J^ C/J rj ^J

^^ ^<u-Sc^ fc<M

^^^§M^^.-H|^

^^^>,^t3^^-

&a35|a^?

IUCSI^HIUIU ..2

""Ps^ri

^ c £,0 g . v-

c« O "> . tf) -*-» O
<u o W C/3 « CD U

ex 5

»^ ^

cq

Q v

w "S

13

A" &

«

T3 O
H'>

220

APPENDIX

[22O

Is

^fc

0^

i

IS

^

-

^

'

r^ o

'i2g955|s'dCCc«

il

§8 £ 8

k

o3

J3

C

gl

'o,
-a «

u

r^ • t«

«s-§

• 5 S c 2

M

U

1

&

fl s a ^s

ss? «

Abrah
hoff,
John Q

John

Adam G
chant.

al

G

«'3

g -
-

ederick
attainted.

221]

APPENDIX

221

cnw j

- 8 S&oi

rf

i

£ %

iption and R

^ U K o -° o ^ "-.'-/} y)w

i-J J i-J

,_]

o^r^o-Q^o^

i_J J J

o J2

ro o

o ^
hJ

ft

c 5

Is

__. . /o ^ ^

«s<|

o

c

XI

O

85

513

0?

eT

I I I

222

APPENDIX

[222

ription and

•

0)

"253

I* -§§ •S*'

,^ * i3 u vo Ld

O-S w o

1!

*° 5 a
8.S- 3-$

II *

,-5

*1* S» i.

oil II? -

s ° ^2 2 2 2

vO t-^
O\ <N

S -- B

•£ ^

j^ ^

c J"

^^ M

0)0 U

So g

Q B

3

rt a

O .2

T3

223]

APPENDIX

223

I

U r

e-s

t;

U-u

•" >%.^ ^ .!_> ^ _w _, w^ . "' ,_, oo • n py ^ ^ ^^>eo M rt

4

i!

«>i

5*3

_]

^«3iS-fr*«* 5i r Si *& -i?

n;) T3 ea x °^cn -^^Oc32*J' d • * 5

aia^^fi 'R^s«s^flrf?8«l*i^

«iJ«Si5J5fSiKSBiftS

i^ifiii^ifl^irfiiiifi

ifi .^ t/i o o t^1^ i-itnrt-i-'f3-^'t«t>^inoO(« •^.t/i-'-'

^^^Wg^-O^J^o^^^^M^^^^^o^

M iJ H J iH i-JvJi-l ,_J ,_]

^

8

O\i-"iOC^M ^OCJN t^ O

ooroTj-o\t^ ^-a\-^- co M

V

>-O

M^roM 1-1 1-1 i-i 1-1

$

s*

_ii

w* § -ff S

0

u s » . „• ^

• • Q

OH » fS B 00

t

^

g
"5

•s'llE
|||w

cJ.<u[j-iO O O -a o

<"5 1 1 .J * B B 1 I

1

iiil

^ajw^j

|.s | ^-1^1 « - « <5 s

bi b ^igi" j- i s £• r

a^as«c^^a g

2c3 S « ^ ^ S^S fi M

>^

jj

o

c
u

33332 333 3 3

%

J

t;

(31

33333 333 3 3

Q

G

?N

t« rt

4

S rt
^

33333 333 3 3

•S

^

oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

<0

f-»

*->. r^» *>• t-» I** t^. t^

V

o"

c?\ o" •* 's? ^r co -^

<V)

N ro

Q

>

>»^>O OO^ o CJ

q

o
£

o****oo vo** QJ oj
£ ^C Q Q Q Q Q

224

APPENDIX

(t-i r-«
'J3 #'

;•?£

t"** h*

*|2£*

( J *~^

f^x

O

•s-^^^^zs.

^•^fiii

^ iyii^Kw!ii!i!i
i*: %&&&**&****&

^tiif|iij|| i^r^J
ilii^TiHl^fSI!^-

13

M W^' ^-i ^^.PH _*~1 ^/^ ^ C ^

• O rt t^.r • rt J= . ^O ^ g C3 C

^p%j!^J^o-£

--I

q « C £ B
75 « ^ ^ S

Tf ON

O N

w LO

H „

II

2 S

a s

O

~

s-

c/:

I

Uj T3

Q^

Q

225]

APPENDIX

22$

G O

3*

££
fc ?

to .2 |2

S|

0

o § S .

r -a H Joo

»«-, *o £ o to"
^° rtO ^ d^

§ ^

ipti

•S2 -gS

Ojg 2
fl — .

s

o w

o o

— ' —

o

§^i ^

'J2 o S

°7,

s -0

o\id

4Jo = |S

) 0 C/j

hase

C/3

•s 1

C S

< o*

"S u

I

J

'o

3

.9

•5 a

ii

> 2

I

Q! 5

5 a

226

APPENDIX

[226

Description and R

55=55 0--°.

HI'SI*

o^ O ^ o*-(

O

o

1

§ S

8 c

g

11

-

flj *"O

Q 0 S

*"O

0

a

8 1

Brt
ri

VJ ^

Q Q

227]

APPENDIX

227

x B

«r 8

-

•

.

fe 111

. e

W

Descripti

_Q "rtr- -WJ

<N >, cd -^ ^ ^- bjQ uW *J — un

•o § 5^2°3 "^ c *

~

00 t^

^ a

-2

s

8
0

O • • m <u

-~\ *-> -^3 : N

•— j QJ O ••-« ^ ~-« ^

•5c/3u,^S^COo^

»3 ^ ^ ^ % & w -x1*^

o^-'^'^Ort T3
^ 'S -Q rt b^ CL« S> rf

^u^

-5

i!

rt <u
u

^-T G

"~3 UH -*-•

8 £ .S

22%

APPENDIX

:

i
1
I

>3

K
«

ft

!

f§ i oo'Zjao ~ c/5 ~

S ^^ ^ P r o

« £

s

s>^

a

C *J f

II I

g

*5 o C O

k

«•§
5

.2 .5 S '3

?3 5 a ^ s

o +••

ffi

oo oo oo^ oo^

229]

APPENDIX

229

t Ward. W. by Broadway, N.
Mary Watkins, S. by heirs of A

II

00

cu.o

2-

,

Pn -Q

i2 O T3

o . .r

pR-a^1 „«,-,

^aaf!j?«<*'s «*';

\&t S3

•5

' ol

U T3

MT3a^ * s 3

3 3

"^

.s

« 2 .S

I

li

9

»— »

|l|l , , ,

2 3

230

APPENDIX

[230

e <«

2 o

§ JS

i

Descriptio

.

-c fc

-

•2S

35«P§j^rfffS|«l| **£*

I»fc^££f!!;^°l5^s's~ *w-^l
iSf^fis^ss

_j S S PS

c/5 ^"(O

§

5

5 1 « a§

S § I -S?

a *r 3

Ills «

SJl-a

I
s"-

S'0 «

^ s -

IS

S rt 2

a -s€

4_> •—! T1

231]

APPENDIX

231

s

-5

> 11

a"*10

i

2,0

!«

"^ C3
O °

us

c o
*l

I a
§*

I — I'D

2-S

1 1
fe|
Ss

i!
•§.1

-1

o °

°^

^ ft!

S|

O d

= 5,c^j5_;^^

« guc-'^-o ^ T;

^^^la^ldS

j

a

c ° s

§3 s

o

<&

00"

232

APPENDIX

[232

O'.SJ 5 ^ •
'

ThC/} j3 <U • ^ ^^

^oo CT1 " x r>

00

t

O N

OO ON
rj- ro

1

§g

c^! 42

c E-J

<u i-^j

o j § i3

e s

o» o

I I

fc W

C 4-4

rt c

aj T3
Q|

1

oo oo

233]

APPENDIX

233

l

B

ff

vp2 •££ IS g

S rf

fti

•a

<3
I
|

I

*

£ w

5 .SB

U « .J

".?

-

G

_,-u-i >.v • .

S

a 5

i5 1

I

S 6 ^

rs ^ g

cu

4>

X

234

APPENDIX

[234

pti

ri

.

. TT >o c
-d S 00 rt

!§!iJli8fi!lMte*!«

*3 !•? a 8 s^S'S - E« K§-«35 £0? ^ .-S5

•ll^i^^Slz^feJ^g
S£fc'Stf3i*£«3!S8ri«.J£«*«rfJ!«

O O ^^ J J JJ J

-a «

O
ON

c S

M

c

I

bj ««

Q 5

G Io

I S

i I

r! d

la

•*-• Q)

Is

^5 ^3
6 "S 3

oo oo oo oo

Tt" 10 t**» ON

n N « S

00 O O

Q Q Q

235]

, I V

APPENDIX

y.

C?

^ f o

235

S g

<*. </)

^.K 3 2 fl

^ -O ^ ON B

. w ^ >, ffi ^ *J (5 .£j° ^ c/5 *^w >!» • 5s ^ ^ ^ ^5

a^'Sw'§S'a4^|b^t2l-r's^'H^^>0.s^ £gr«

>^rt ^^c3M :p^q.'9tic'3«ic"Jl{>.fe>S : * "S ^

l!?1"^i!l"K!pffc5|! ^^
^iJiiil^l^lSs^lrJi^ii

^ iS *? .s | P S° * a 35' s g s ^° ^| *«S 1 a I

^^^^ll^igilii'^^iil

ogo^l^.^.o, l^^o^^oU !

IS

£F

r«

82^

N O^C^

5^

^:^

ON ° d

d^.1?

CO W

I

^3
Si

vO

ex

8 e« 3

= g
1 I

236

APPENDIX

036

iption and R

« spfp

J>"-— .ac/i s ^ s^^-.S"0 ^•SfcT^W

s »|«>£ *-•

.
•S SI srS a

.o

P3

|J5 ££§£

U c/5 H

I1

•*J rs> •*-• T? "

333

S'oHU § rt 3

237]

APPENDIX

237

scription and R

$5 {IS

rn ~ P" _ ;* J2

P£v5

Co

-2 c/)— vo

-f •s;*

en

. N

-

s?

•

g"

i

M)

O

S-

.

I ,

« ^-2

5

•a

"k

•JJ

2

'1

S 1^

'& '

^

<L)

D<

S

CJ flJ

^ *- So

V4 c> iir

OJ

S

-C

£S g

ffi 0

1

rg

I

238

APPENDIX

[238

I

I

I

b

wg

1?

fc-O

55

tc

3
CO

£
£

72

^!s§

rt w •£•-»

£ 8£-£

In S _-§
rt O C

wcS|i

"- ^< O

« S S£

UTS s~«

,/" 2 cS 2J

'S T3V3

"

S>o

T3 "3-

|~

4-» O

2:

trt !>•* u^ i) > * Q)

5* M 2^ ^

J H Q

^o-S^ 2

oJJzij*^ o
^co w^

9||1. §

• CJ i-; •

O VH .fi S >-, -j O

^OCO.^ j ££

-g ^i/: es a "5 -g

^4 H J

fc4

1

<u

V

i

J ^

crt

£

OJ

s

1

o

I1

s *J .^

2

w

<

S

Cj

^

CO

PQ

'u'o^

a

a s

P^

° «

D

^cD

M

Cuo r; ^

'c3

rt S

^ rt

1

Q

<u
i — .

Sli

O S

1

S^

|S

£

1-3

rt
I— »

•v*

Q « 3

2 > £

Q « « s

s

*^i c3

o

H

1

05 '3

>^>'rt

tn rt

N

a "3 s

£ ^

P "ri "
rt

3

"Q

00*

OO
r-.

OO OO OO

^

o" *

ON

d; d ^

2

vj

<L)

1)

<U 1»

Q

2

- CH

c ^ c

2

^

Jj

3,

^, £> A

•is °Z

i

•<t ro

^ O >-o 00
Q\ *O NO O
ro u-> rf ro

oo

1

eg

Purchaser.
ael McLachlan.

13

J3

n.
beth Leonard.

las Ivers.

O -W Q

t/3 QJ ^

111 1

in CD

h Hammond,

rt

im Barber.

.2?

1

42
o

M

rt oJ G

^•- 2

r3 g p •$.

.2.

U

s

•2

<u

V

c

i

^

a H

p_l ^ ^ J

<

£

2

1

t t t t € t

1

oo oo

V

^ °° ^ ^ a 5

•£

£ £

1

c ^ Jir* c eLi S 3

^ ^ ^ ^, C/2 ^

i

a; t>'

1. " 1

240

APPENDIX

[240

*
>J

£
«

1

!

111*3231

OJ S ^3 ._

2 0.5 <§

II

d 3 o d 4_, d

^eQ^; -g^i^z

'jpjtejpf

d-o 2

^ C LL,

^^ 0^"°. 2 -O 2 °'
t3 fl . O b JZ

c « ^o>- LO js r^1^
Tbrt^^^-S^J2
M^t^S-c5M-2 x

, V5

Cfl

o ^2 o

; «B > >«

?3?0

oo

u-i

S3!

<L»
|

S5

%£

a «

& J-'S <U T5

•||sa|

°'S r M*5

9 ^ ^ S t?

o

O t^»

i I

241]

APPENDIX

241

cription and R

. . U ~

= 2 1

o^ § ^ ~ T3 ^c f£. ^ .

>_ PH ^ -C rt ±5 .2^ n3 ^''?

^ >,O ^ ^ ^ e< W a ^ j -°. §

s"

K S

. ^ w " •". J . •" ft -- ^«

^•./lw. °^ -§ 31

?'b*H'-o f^r •**

-• ^ 13 o% >r- — « a

l

,

t^ c >—

^ v £ 3 rt S -^ ro^'*- -«

t'gj3>gg^«<:joco .

J3
a^-

S

§|

Ji

O | 3

. j^; ^3 cr

c? u O ^ ^

SJ 2 ^ ^ ,.

1

K

•-• c b/j

£i .^

-w Q j2 >>

H||

3 ^

SMS^S|^ S

«2^225.2SSh -

•§•9

3

al =

APPENDIX

[242

& <£

-2 5*^*5

fc ,?

,0

^ 35

« Q*

ft

o

2^

,^1

^0'

QO >_i

« . c/5 -5

as

&

|S

^^

o5

S"

'^^rd

•°^ r

*&i

•a -^

.a -i
*l

|5|^

1-

sen

C/5 *

&

So

1?,

1

^

OJ
G
•

X^^
C-l

C«^

^^w

•*>

-2^0^ £

'S-?

'£ G

^* ^*

||

^

J

... d\

l^fi

•SJS.2

1

£*

K^5

*'s

J|

.sl

^

5"°t rfJr
SS^ss

^

^-0

B

*T3 ^5

^ • ^**

* 7L

p/

. >

O ~->

.*-*

M ,,

w g

T3^ 2

C/5

o

c cj

*> •
^
§

"a ^

O -M

fffi

Jl

*0 t^

13 -°
•Sc/5

«i
*-» w

2s:

ji

ilBiP

S^!

N ^ U<

ro^
. ^ >%

j

u o

s -1

o«^l

o^

0^

-d ^

•3 ao

& ^

i\

\

^ 'S^T, •£.* .2£-BJi«J5 "a-Ja^-Sl"*

11 h*S H I**i4,*^*&K»tt

j? itjrf 1* g*ij!3*ji»i*!;j;*

sl^^i ?i J?JI*iIlS»!iwy!l5

J JJ HJ HH^ HnJ»-lJ^

oo

Q

o

Q

o

""»

O oo

VO

vJ

8

5

0

o5

4

06

0

0\

vn oo

r»

T

t>.

*

CO

TJ-

00

\3

w r<

vO

*S

S?

A

T3

"Ss"

s

S.d

S

G

^4
cj

rtr1

g

4J G

S3

9

a4 S

Purchaser

f?
1

I"

Daniel Neven.

i

13
^

1

5

"73

I

lit

ip

J3"s J3

0, rt i,

IQI

f— > H->

Abraham Cann

s'

5o
>>

VH

rt

1

.S2
'o

1

John Lamb, Es
| John Dela
merchants.

>^

"rt

k

O

G

1

9

•:

3

*

ss

2

3

3

S 3

S?

!

J

o

c

.•^

•^5

4> TD

Q^

s

s

3

a

-

3

5

•: s

*i

1

^

8|

S rt

rt

2

s

s

»

2

s

3

s s

s s

S 2

OS
1— 1

•-

vO

o

vO

vO

rj-

"* ^?

1

CO

oo

oo

00

co

SO

oo oo
r>. t~>.

3

M

,.

«

V

O
cs

o

.-To « « ^ -

v»

1

o

3

s

3

d

rt

rt

1
i— >

j>*

'S

cL
c^

5 J

L g

i S

243]

APPENDIX

•

243

I3S|S|I|I3^;|^^

:s

rt-2

s s

I si* J

D C J3 C

CX ,fl O ,fi

o o

>;

V

1

i 3 2 2

u Z?

" II

O

s

v-a

^^~'

w-o*

s

I

O!^'^

g

J<

(/) Cj

tn '3

s

£ rt

S 3 3 3

C^ §

2 ^: o o

S ti
£ «

>— >

0

1

oo1

uo »-O O O
00 CO OO 00

oo oo

€

^

l_j-

-" >-T C\ i-T

o cT

LO

1

d

H

X >^ 0 0

| | § 9

ci ^

"J~^ h— >

Q

244

APPENDIX

[244

•4-*

C/3

Description and R

^

ON ON >-H

<U

CX,
S
frl

g-8

O S? JS

*j G =3 O

"5 1 *§ »S

I **-'.§ ^

"5 j= 2 ^

W r, U C/3

"t3 R .. rrt

.S »-• 5 O CJ 4J O

a S-S | ^a§

. •* •

I

ed

.52"

'S,

en

S3'

<

OJ 1

O M

i« G t« ri

B -*j c rf

u o
Q ^

S1

s #

^r- cu

T+"

oo

245]

APPENDIX

245

?

Descriptio

1511

s

is

m

S^el2^^

i

fi

Loyalist

•3

.S

3 ,3

6 B

*

w A

246

APPENDIX

*$

^ ^^

Cu <«

s2

1

03 «n

25 £

*

.-^^

%

^0

$X

• O

|

^

^c/5
|«

ll
^^

>,o

s«^«

if^i

PS!

fe

^

^•c

c/5£
-o^
l£

0 6

.2

^o

^ r^

XJ t^

tz°°

2

^S

^300

1,°

o ^

'2 kf

>> o

rQ *— «
C/5^

1"'

W c/5

£$

So

£

^

^

W

^HJ!

J2 O <«

*-t

^-^

^
£

^••?^

w Xx 5*~>

2^-°
o -n W
« c/5 M^

. 0
£*

4- ^

i*

^s?

w 2"
N

scription and Rei

^^;

(A

I5

!"

0 4

f,-

J!^

g ^o cs

l-^a*

*j W vO ^
& m f! \.

O^O ^ ^2 a

W N g Z s£

.S ^ rt <« T
OT T3 JQ o £

°£

C -w

•^ ^o

M

N >>

t^Xl

^^ z
> Tf r

3 £.c/j

^ ,«

£$
££

1$

^
^ <u

*2

o£
.g >

§fc

1?

*£

3 «

O.2

c >

•** j3
vo .

TT

V-i

rt
^

c

c

r-
\j

2-2«

00 rt f

s?3

ds^;
550-

S-ai

:^ - xi

-H

rt

^

c

B
%g

S N
2-Hd
^^^

^?o

^5^

W.SS5
r "^ ..

"o 2,

i*

> N

"3 0

0^;

c J2
"~ ^
^>>

C4 ^

3

•^ It Ji

l^i ^

:o*

g^

rnfc

0

^c^

o

Sri N c

2|.

•rt C O t^ - (

c «« Jz; vo *; ^

H •*- ^ '

**&£

2 oo ^

^S«T

£d

J2

4 —

?

js&

VO cT

J9J5-

^ 2 -Q •Q H ^

o O • >

** o ~

$£ s:

5«»

f

M^

i

> t/

c

V—

5«p

i .->

1

JJ{

^5

a

2

So
*-,

R

g.

-8

3

§

1

o|

1

M

s?

i^ 10

*

N

o.

N

~

i-

i t£

j$

o0r

£

•O

III

§

o

c

«T°

IS

2

9

§

o

w
G

!

1

2|

£

u"§w g

QJ a

.88 Q|

I^S-sg

H*

fl
P

II

w

Daniel Will
Westchest

US
•
v^ ""3

H

1

s

>•— >

T3

1

JD

8

•— >

Ebenezer Y

James Saidl

,

>^

jj

u

o

(3

3 3

,.

„

3

5

a

5

5

1

J

t;

51

2 3

3

5

3

2

3

3

3

t

c
5f '*

^5

|S

2 3

3

5

8

2

*

3

3

4

t^
00

t^

M

3 3

8

.

3

„

3

3

3

^

NO

1

1

3 3

=

5

5

-

3

3

3

247]

APPENDIX

247

fr

•a

o

*° . ^'

Purchaser.

•d

s

P4

.0

8
A

C

C/5

,Q

i

Bazeleel Howe.

^

^ J

<j ' >

1 i

?2
C

^'

g
rt

s

Dennis McGuire.

i « SB* 1

i 1 MJ 1

1 a «|1 I

I 1. ^Sa s

k.

o

j

2

A

c

;

::

8

;

;;:::

Date of Sale.

rio

248

APPENDIX

[248

!

-a £.crstst:~ia

*f*Z&*j&**Zs&Zt*s&

S?

f*l

S3.

CO Ntf

3- 8

M 00

W •£ P

<u ° a

zr ^ i

II

I I

-3

*Jp|££lf£

5 S1 8.

r>. M so

0

« 1

73 I

fl .5 «« fl

1111

3333

3

249]

APPENDIX

249

•°.-a S

8

- o-

-2

° 3

-2 ^ I

(S « 8 ,§V <»

-2 M 2

rf

H H

% -

^ o o

i. c v- w

s £~s

.2 . *- <G *
S gu-Sp

6 d
"^ ffi

i fgi I

•s e^ s s

Si .S

rt O in rt

00"

250

APPEXD1X

[250

Description and R

w

H!

o fc£

. o d °~~ w

5 «

a 8

M ro

I

s

is

I

o

s

| 5

1

>

-

5| »
c '3

00 00 00

£ &

1-s J

r i C A-1

reby
City

New York,
tates within

tate
eited

ct o
es o

f ab
ew
BURG,
RTLA

> /••> ^<

I*|G

U o 55 _

8 ^g u

^ §£fc

.Sag^

-saSg

•1.6*5^
l^^S
u 5

e. * *
Office

^ '£ -o

"

£ o ^ 3

| -|| |

I S I 3

^ k4 V

*0 g S ^
jn * £ S

lit!!

5c^ g ^

l|-st

Jc «- ^ ^

251]

APPENDIX

251

Southold town-
,vav bounded on

^-5^^
Z-r.'z^'S* g

(V ~ «3 «« ^2

* ^2 l^f J

Sjsi!!

531 jr,

£££
w^ss
.IJ

^*5

uv£

«2-S

m

lU
2 11 a

0 '5 0

'G£'G

0 W 0
U >-. °

•f •££ ^
11?^

p rfi .9 J
o g 4^3.3

a|§a|
|51li

"rt

f

^2
"33

^n
"ia

Description and Remarks.

ea o .5) fc rt^^o^g W)^^

KiUUMIfj

?l«js g ^^|S S--I

|^a|l,|lg|-g|-3

^ S^ C 0 -i-^ rt 0 g

o fel.&J'8!^ sffi-s

>S'=5>^in=T3S--l~<
o > i— » o ca rt« q rt'C-ri

PiWllipl!

s >»H ^^ ^ -7 • 1 *• *o ^

iz^rt^Cv^.^^-^Sc •

j^Blgflftl

«^lll1-6^|l=B
|f?fcl^lS|i§l^

iS^ft

£U£

,vi|£
S'| 8

:1:

+-> >~* 4_>
|-°.g
S^

* i *

££*§

8JI

*S's

t3 >%tj
g-° 2

adjoins land of Joseph Curren.
he Middle of the Island Farm in Brookl
4^ lots, about 320 acres, " reserving to
Esq., and to his heirs and assigns one lot
of the above described lands claimed by
erty." N. by William Clark, E. by Willi
John lloman, W. by Connecticut River,
'ract in Southold township known as Robii
350 acres. No definite boundary given.

u.

UH

H H

H

H

I

ON O ^** ^

1

H

e

3

CO

iJ

^

1

)|

rt3^

i

*

s

1

1

ll

<

1

.^

e

•8

^3

.A"S

F W

55

5

i

^

c

M

|

1

1

1

c>

3

ll

E

^

ll

I

I"

•

5

j

1

P
A

1

M

1

3

5

^

oo"

10

^J

N

1

1;

M

9

3

5

If

•ag

*J

g-Ji

252

APPENDIX

[252

11 *% %\k\

M Is -Q*K° ^"^

** * 6" *NS

g"5 I .5-3 d^fS

«i3a

>. J3 .- 73 <u

J ^ .tS S 'S >

tS

If * §**!*!?

|8 1 "fr 85«2f^^

Ifi'la

1/5 > fi OJ

|S.j|jl

P m "• rs ^ >»

Description and Remark.

ract of land called the " Long Lots," be
E. by Benjamin Floyd, N. by Joseph E
county road.
Iso the Benjamin Strog lot on Covam Re
Iso the " John Joiner's Farm."
Iso a tract on Nassikig Road west of Jos»
Itogether about 2400 acres.
" certain messuage and farm " of about 6
haven township. W. and N. by Willi
Nathaniel Woodhull, deceased, S. by the
Iso half a tract of woodland in same
William Smith or the middle of the Islai
Smith, S. by William Floyd and Nathar
ceased, E. by sundry proprietors. Nun
known.

Dur lots at Nocamack in Brookhaven t
bounded on S. by Daniel Petty, W. by th
E. by William Smith. No. 2, S. by Wil
the River, N. by William Floyd, E. by W
3, W. and N. by the River, E. by Wil
William Floyd. No. 4, W. and N. W. b
William Smith, S. by William Smith,
lese four lots contain about 32 acres.

H «<« <

^ H

VO N

1

O M

ro »-4

oo

1*4

o

a

|

Is i

]&* E

II

g

•all 1

||

w w 2 o

o u

>— > CQ

W

s

E

§ ^

1

'§ 1

3

1

Sfg ^

^

W)^ rt "S

S

0 ' S -g ' rt

2

O S

I

"^ 3

S

1

g> 3

3

253]

APPENDIX

253

Descripti

fi .

c

t/i rt

5 E

-j

254

APPENDIX

[254

sis

H-,tfj«*-i><uw<u«u"^
O4>Ot-l*"l>-'1-'WlO
wjiwooooo .is
g o g rf d rt rt i^C

2=6^

. . . «
*£$£ n e ^^ 8 « 8 « -

a**5* J •« o « 8 « a u ,«

2 c"o rt rt rt rtZ<

.*Tj 4-1 •••* o O O i> O •*-•

° \O "" """^ ~ ^ *"* Q vi_> W — k-l -<J-

•••• 00 00 OO I— i ro— \ IH IN 1-1 >-i 1-1

S?

S &i &:o vS oo °

"vd HI t^rOO fO N v,&rt
«" fT

W> ui

, -^

• £ 3 5 2 .S«

^^.^llls
,^ s

•

lls'sfll'l5 s " "§

t>>^-irt'^*-' ^-!> T^

•"

i3^"^^I

o^ g.s >,«. S

-J'-5|§-|^

uii^i

' •OCQ<^ih23

is

g

0)

Q

3 «
5

J^ S |H

v v ^\ "-^ x

?=^ a

255]

APPENDIX

4?

»j

V)

^

*

Q

K

o\

<i

t^

•1
V,

>j iT* **

S. -o

Vj

. *

5

0 rt

C/^

^

~ .^

&

^Jo"** O

^•n

0-0 M

o=G

. X «5 /5 • C

<n v o^j ""^J"cj2>2j2

1/3 Crt t/3 ^ t/5 t/5

.2 o o i.2.0. o- °"

Ocovooo— -ooc

O C O ~ O O

\O i— 1 h- 1 M ^ ^tM fOroror^

rr>^- i-J >-« rj-r^N rj-Tj-Ta-

OC O Tj- »-H ^- ^-

1

oo^^-^^Ssg^o;

>-o rf M u-<vo uj u"> >«J- ro r) «-•
V?

M ro LO •-• u-> p^vO C4 fO N

»HH

Purchaser.

ill is i J

c,SJCrt^ S1-^
,M « rt r£ C K i — .;

Oj C .— WH C . XJ C

i>3S<->,a-: c ^tr0

CQ - S ^. « g 3 ,C Sc?>

et^^m « «fe
sMIg.-g fjl

gsael'g5^!

^J J^J *2 -J So

^ 5li|*| 1 1 1 1

g^WC^^^Q £cc

•^'J-^J^iLi^d,-

filllfflfl

Q D "Z 5 CJ H Aw 2^-

Thomas McFarren.
John Delafield.
Isaac Norton.
Thomas McFarren.
Cornelius Ray.
Aaron Stockholm.

.

(U

^

v

a

B3333333333

- -o a

a! >— <

o

0

»{§•».»»•-.-

1

6

t/i

S1

^- oj

c!

^ rt

•vj

OO

00

^J

-

3

5s

8 s 5 * 8 3

256

APPENDIX

[256

257]

APPENDIX

| 2

5 0"S«?!5* ^o ^3 5
fijzigwg.'S^-Ss-gfS

1/5 .„ oZ<-i'-:i: t«^,i3 <u>-^J (« "-*

•ill^S^sl 55?^||

fO

0 «

g

ON

q

ro

CO O

3 §

d

<

s

t^

« rr,

^5

*O W3 'o 6JO

aT s c

£ c

<-i

rf-o

fq 15

1 &

"1

Q •€ -2 -2

</>

rt ^ o

.^ ^~< "* Pn

cT rt

^ E

"S31"1

1§. s S

0

SJiJ «

'c'Q 2 r Q 8

H

u

QJ _ W *~^ W
« S

£

0?

£ s

1

Q

3

rt s

o

****

•d

<u-d

|

Q §

"

"c

3

E^-»
80

rt

5

11

0

ao

258

cription and Remarks.

APPENDIX

[258

2°0

o > C 4 c

1H° s^s^^l « 1 1 ||a^2 iC^l^

•

O I- .

I

o

IS

rt fl

8*0 8

o

OT
I*

259]

APPENDIX

259

ptio

* « %- • -S

°

-s .

-§

mimM^m

8
£

o

S &

rt C

> a

r"" qj

?1

g'oS

o

° ^
cT *

P|

s|

rS -3 '

3

&i

260

APPENDIX

[260

t

«

1

•b

1
1

:i

E

^^42 w ?

O

£

.2
.i2 to

flSgo'^sg AT<«£

-.5 -S S «8

. °-^o£ ". S

*j JC, w ^ O — .

Jt tfl Q _ ~

I^lsge

w " "

d

o-ga a go a

s .S 5 S -^

betwee
ision lin
es in S.
Dunn, N.
subdivisio
o Delaw

s
o

,3 "1- v-J^^^.-Sw^^^Srt^j^ w § tftCd
2 C3 ^ J^^ c „•-.£ C ii_^ rt ^^ ^ u >^ *S w-r^ g^

"nJ'^S'o'c ONO rt^!^^'c7£: o ~"->'o o .S ^ "t/
S.'g 3-S P.a S^-o ooQlSSHo^cx^'ao-]

A

i!

II

•so

El

2f)l]

APPENDIX

261

!

«"3> Z S

^Ii^plljll^*1:i|l3j
ig*83^ail*iEifit-jUii«<5'"2

||58^J^ogpgi-|^lo^°|ti
So Sis alswsw &£ K-atdls* ^ 1.0 9£ a a|

0\ 0\ . 0\ H

g."

vS

O ^3
tf^

II

h

s?

o

c

3

1

1

a

•s

Xk

(U T3

•£

•3

~> HJ

S

rt

"1

~" £

i

s

S ^

3

S

1

00

Ǥ

oo

s^

vd"

-0 pj

~j>

I

1

K° "H
'So

o

c

262

APPENDIX

[262

263]

APPENDIX

263

'§3

k

'C

v

«

ffi

o

i

^

If)

*

V

1

0

U

1

«

^S

•g

o

s~\

1
b

^
§

M

1

I

I

%
'& .

-8

^ 3
'S ^

3

£
O
+3

CX

^ ^ &

-S «

Lft

§ c §

« 1

U

o •£ o

S o

0

10 O Jo

o •*-"

5^

C^ HH O

8 fe

N*-*'

a ^

c 12

^

O O *S) IT)

cS g

V

00 O O ^O OC

C\

1

SP'i; |

3 s

.s g

1

,:§-•"* ?

S

si

^

s 1

^ P5

"

•2 ^

•S . Jj o

C rt

C * * fl* o

*

ill

s^ 1

111

^i<:^

6 4»

! I

tuo

— C

Purchaser

1 1 1 ^ ^ ^ 1 'I'l

k-

C fi

«

\

B

1

•S .«« 1

H

|

g

^

J'SDO

\j

8

•5

K ^ M

•5

a

^

>% C/3 >^

<a

(4

^\

~ 22. r^>

1

c

LJ

> c^ >

0

QJ ,-C W

PQUM

v.-'

^j

OO 00 00

-54

00 OC 00 OO OO

^

^* Cr ir

ts

J^ Jj* Jj* *J* JJ"

V-

^2"

>>

cT »-n roocT T?

CO N Mw

1

^L^

1

254

APPENDIX

[264

>>

1*

a

t

3

<a

f<

1

|

I

|

3

.<i

<y\

•t^1

6

bj

£

3

5

C3

l_l_iU->-il-i>-,>-iVH

2!SSSS^SS^S

^SSSSSS SS

rtc3c3c3rtc3c3rtc3cJ

rt rt rt rt rf rt rf rt rt

S'fOvS'S ^S?*^

C4 O ON T^oT'-r ON 0s OO vO ^
vO t^*^ r^vO O ^ ^^ ^^ ^^ O

vgs ? ^"8 fo ^ <? o"o

?^

V

2" "25

O >-iOO

1

7 7^7

O f^5CXD 00 •- fO ON O ^O

rJ-O^fl^iO fO TJ- OOO
WO\'^-T}-CN Tf TJ- MO

(N -. M HI M M N

s?

Purchaser.

*•! Jg-o-g

.^3 ^2 2 S^

ll*!;|wu^1

syjgwcc_,O

x§So||§^

b 'S

<-J O a; -«-J S ^

.sS,t?s-^!!!J

2XO||^K«|?
al'S.da.S-l'So'8

u §£• ^~

sll JIIJIII

^l|||u§|Jfl

g2c^^'5*::-c^^<Urt
^ (-H c>7 ^%H CQ W PQ W ^ i^>

i

I

•

<s

.2
g

1

s

^

w

0

bj3 »»••«.»

^»J

QvowvwSw

^^^2^^^****

: t ; i - - '. ' '

(^

^

oooooooooooooooo

cx) oo

00

Q

*->. t^

t^

^

1— l*~l(-^hH— «H-<^^»— 1

*«%*>«v<««« — . . .

V

M ^ W •-. C< **

0-"

o"

\»

1

IIIMIll

3 = = , , ^tj, S S

<0

X2SS25 o53-
%

265]

APPENDIX

265

W N l-l N t-l !•* •"" «-!•"«

& « 2 '(N & N 2"£T

« 1 2° 1

> I T ^ ^ 7 i 7

C^ ^OOOOOOt^N

'N ONCO t^ fOO TfO N

OO ^00 lOOO ON^O Tt* O

— — . — N4 N4

I I 1 - I

<^iOO iOt>»fONrOiO'-iOO^»NTfO t

i-ioo 1-1 o\t^ooo t^oo 1-1 ^ooo t^oo co v

266

APlyE^DIX

[266

en m .

v v m <A

£ «« S

•BnHfWMMWM <U(3Jt/3W5t/3t/)t/3t/;t/)t/)t/lt/5</lcl-'t/i<*-tt/lt/3t/3U5t/5

g«5S5C5« ooJiJi^JiJiJiwwi!^Jiov!o^viJiSs

oobooooo rtrtooootJoooooortortooooo

rt N CO -. Tj- H<

2"^p>s

^

5

OO >-O50 •-" u

O LT> "-< 10 t

o vo

•i Tf O

J>4^

OO CO

M33SS333 ""

.* ^. -*---- M w « « « « « ^* 5r* *•

(3 3 3 5 S •. - p^ 5 3 S 3 3 c

268

I

E

APPENDIX

[268

O 0

£ ,2

c c

O O "^00 N
-i ro u->.X> m

. M . t/3 oi

rt rt
rn M 00 00" O

vr>OO TfO
i I I I

O

7 7

^«

269]

APPENDIX

269

^

V

g

1

£

>3

q

K

«i

Q\

1

6

s

2

5

o

s

c

S d s s i

o Si Si SiJ o

.....trt */3 . , CO . 09 , 9)

§§£i§§88S§§B§o§§

tnJJWuJwtntnwJJ

rt rt rt ,_

rtrtcJrtrt o^ rtcJ ^^ rt „,_. rt ^

rt ,,| ^ rt rt cJ rt cJ ^^

OO ^-OO vO OO

O\ ro O O " r^ rt O H N dNrffOt^t^
H-iCNM'-i'^-NOTj-tsoOO'-o O\00 M

O t-* t^OO fO vooo ON M

I-H t^. LOVO *-OOO VO O ^

H^ r

00 vO vO >-i
OfO -^-MNOO NONOO t->

o4t-iNNo vovi4t-

1

^^4^-^.

II 1 I 1 1 'III 1

O^fOw OO'O CNN "-" <-* M LOOO >O t^- O>

1 1 1 1 1 III

m - «

MM M I-H

l~l M

Purchaser.

Thomas Adams.
Gilbert Bloomer.
Jeremiah Hugsrow.
Thomas Russell.
Joseph Hustis.
John Barton.

1 isjsli £ 1

ffi t/)-^ ^ ^ -^ ^ ^5 o! -S . £

n CU S "S g G CU-S ^ TJ T3

t^.52 . -S o ,5 J 5 Ss o J2 s: >-, . cs
•- ° & H ffi ^ £ "^ o^S 5 o >^=

S"§ g^ c c>" SH C^ffiW -

^.^l-lllllllllo^

llllllg^lllilJ

tn

^ 1 « .Jji

g»;s'l|||l

VH M JM ^ ^ C A^

pS s fe ° li « -s 5

If lililf

tS QA3^2£,

1

4

1

(U

^

«

^

00 OO

00 00 OO 00 X) OO 00 00 OO OO OO

vO vO O vO vO
00 X3 00 00 00

V,

OO O if) M ro

A

! "

<s « «

a

3 3
i — > i — ,

2 g o. S, a. a5 5 §^ggS§3

•U" ' ".SoS"

2/0

APPENDIX

[270

<3

|

|

1

.

*

.

1

2

[fl«5tfltfltnt/5i«intflin

uooooooooo

« en . . . m • a? „; „• «5 8 rf «5

rt rt rt rt rt rt ^^,^», rt rt « r_^l rt rt ri « rt rH|=i) rt rt

ooO'-nOO'S't^'-'Q*^

I-H f^ O VO O «OOO "3-OO M

O O O "-1 "^ ON t^.vo vO^NOOOOOvCvOHiOOO

« ro « 1-1 w « H, H<

N«H,N H,« C.COH, H, ^«N^

vO OO
vO M ON O O^vOO vO

TII i ii

OO OOOOOOOrOTj-1-ivOvOr-.ON "^^ "^ "^

"S

1 1 1 1 1 1 '
_ HI M rh HI rj- lOvO i*» O
_ >-i 1-1 M CS vO LO CS I-H

V^o **

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III1
ooooovo rocs roi-i \omcs N t-oo r> N t^ cooo oo

Purchaser.

d S «5

„• § . « 5 B .S

• £ +-• C • <U OJOrC ,*^

tjl^i^yj

6

t3 C J> J—
1-i i*V «-" K bJD OJ *

s« • & „• . 0° . S .8 rt ^ H
^'S 1 O|TJ§ 1 i Sls.d£§|*» ' »

I .§ 1 1 "H^ 1 ft i 1 8 ^ *E 3 ^ § ? s 3

•S'^-gSSi^S^^SE^^JSgS^

2 ^e^ ,3 &£.% & < x A£ ^Q< ^ w

*J

1

'5

;tj

g

o-------*-

&

.5.

W 'S3 OO OO 00

OO OO OO 00 OO OO

5.

^"••3 - "^3 3 ^ 1 3

T? 10 o" 00s 10 "«?

v1

CV) CS «N CS

CS C^ rO — C4 CS

3

*J jj - - >vs. >>>.

00" - O-- OO-

> « » >"»>»>- >J3«.--
33S3 533-. o » O>-(_O-hOb2>*

^

00 fc ^.^

£; ^ ^ I^H ^l <<

271]

APPENDIX

271

JJ

£

K

§

0-

0

5

X

q

3 A A A

Cft "^

oaffittUrfuaMMuimui M 01 M

rt rt rt c3 ,^1^ rt rf ctf ( rt rf rt ctf rt

rtrtrt^^cartrtcs«rtrt rtrtetf

O t^ u~j O c^ c^j i-* ^0 OO O ON O O NO NO

VLJ ^ vi*} v£) to co r^O *~* *-* ^ O ON NO
cJ'Ciwro CNji-tts •" >-> M

OO^co-'OOt^COO'-1 '^•t>«O
O 00 O O O'" O- CO rj- LTI M CO
1-1 u->uoTj-Ti-i-iC^(O co

!

oo

OS vo

^

I

>-«Tj-m OONfO-<tMrtM O^t-Tj

oOTj-ON'-i t>. oa> p

NO

1

ill i T 7 i 7 i 7 7 7 i

to OvOO ONN <-> u-j-,j\^- rot^^ r«»OO f
i-oro «rji-H CICOLT

>r« w LOT^-QOO ON^JOONOoO'v^ c.™

> « O OO COOO CO rj- 1-1 ^ OX)

Purchaser,

C

c|2.^-t-' plfrtlJ

I!|limill-i1|<

I5^||5sl^£^-2l

•glllaBl-SSlls-lI-S

8£-| SSEgS««SSi£-?s

a,5!3s4£.a3S5,ssAJ-(S^

S ^ OT. -a 8

1| § l*| rtS .1

§ g *2 ca ^Crt = w cL-c v;

^ll^M|f I=|11
1 1^ ^ .a .!l> 1 s 1 •£ ! .§

^rtc^c^^ ^g5p£.rtt:'g

5rt^'o5'*fflCio« ft -° K

:n o »-i >— >UJ PQ — — H-, t— . ^ c/5

1

on

6

.•g

1"

3"

8>99999S5aS9999S

S2253222SS3 S 5 3

<§

1

00 00 00 O3 CO CO 00
M2 S P^^IM'~'hl2 S 2 ~4 ^ 5

oo co oo co oo

^^

NO O O *^ Ci O o

cT o* cT co co

CS ^ C4 CO CJ >— (

CO -H co

4

I3 5 IlltS" s 3 Is s *

3 s s ll58 s 1" s 1" Is s

272

APPENDIX

\_272

| S c

v "os 2

"S In rt

^ o

13 -5^

,

i «!

V*

<u tS 3

«

rt Si ^

1

»

"3 ^^

R

O M-x *^

« IB-13

'•§

ro

>• <A ^

^.

•^

1

0

>- ||

•5

$

S *o S

C ... ...
•'"... inintn...inenm....

minencn<i''<U(Uininin<U(UQ->(n(Ainin

<«'ji£££jo55££Sit5oo£:£Ei:

cJoouortrtrtouortrtrtoooo

«§i§

o o o rt o

^ s"^

^ -g S

o rt rt rt rt ^^f^, rt rt rt ^^^^^^ rt rt rt c

rt rt rt ^ rt

>-> <U P

&#:T^)?S& &|/o ^^^?^ §

Co:»^o ^^o

00 ^3 rt

H «

3-d 1 ^
^ — <vl eu

^0 in Kft S

•§

^ 2

S

ON

>•! N

oo"

cj- fO

0^ >

H^ ON

<u • J3*

C

^-

chaser.

<•> !u tJ5

,d llli .a -3 1 « f « B

-M — ~ .j SP-Ta ° B tn „• ?? <« s '<« s -^ eu2

iil|^!l|lll||i|l|

.|lii

tx P c aq °
•j= g < ^ cq

« S ^ H S

t^ O O O

""> M O O

ro Tf-^O •-"

ro

1 . .

1

rt 0 ri ^ ^.gWffi S^X S ^ U ^ t^ ffi

= l-S = .Ills-g.^t">-2is = 2

Hi-iiiiiB-sll^in

H-»<! ^ •— >1^ U CQ O i — >— >^ P-1 1 — ^ i — »U i— i (-1

o-1*-" 'S — 'P
^ S 53 §
-g^irS p'e1

i ^2 rt rt (jj

fSo^QW

ON * cu

"p » ° *

- 1

.

rt 'B S

0 §

1

VO ° 'S '

g

CO

rn S g

D to

^

1 §22222333322332332

22233

|s So^ :

g§

^3

S

in rt n^ J3

" O

1

•^ £ ^**

D

rt

S

^33333232322323322

P QJ

'cj 'c ^^ 2 '

rt

tuo § rt" o 'o

1

O
00

1

^ 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2, „ „

'o

1

^35222233222232222

22223

H

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

THIS dissertation is the product, almost entirely, of a study of original sources.
The field was unworked, and consequently it was no inconsiderable task to find
the available material, which was scattered over a wide area, part of it being at
Washington, D. C., part in England, part in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Canada, but most of it in the state of New York. So far as known, everything
available that could throw any light upon the loyalists of New York was examined
and used. Most of the matter relating to events before July 4, 1776, was taken
from printed sources, while that of the later period was found in manuscript
sources. Wherever secondary material has been used, due credit will be found in
the foot-notes of the text.

The purpose of this bibliographical note is not to give an exhaustive list of
sources consulted, but to indicate the unprinted material and the most important
printed authorities for this subject.

I. ORIGINAL SOURCES
i. UNPRINTED.

Assembly papers, vols. 25-28, Forfeited estates.

These papers were arranged by the secretary of state in 1831 from docu
ments on file in the assembly. They are a miscellaneous collection of
petitions, reports of committees, minutes of revolutionary boards, accounts
of the state treasurer, and lists of forfeited estates, and throw light upon
every phase of loyalism. These volumes are in the state library at Albany,
N. Y.
Proceedings of the Albany committee of correspondence, 1775-1778. 2 vols.

This is the only complete record of the acts of a county inquisitorial
board in New York which is available. It affords an excellent picture of
the methods used to dispose of obnoxious loyalists. It furnishes an ex
ample of what was done in the other counties. These volumes are in the
state library at Albany, N. Y., and were bought from the descendants of
Matthew Visscher in 1848.

Minutes of the commissioners for detecting conspiracies, 1778-1781. 2 vols.

These volumes show the attitude of the new state toward the loyalists,

their numbers and activity, and how they were treated in the later stages

of the war. These papers belonged to Leonard Gansevoort, Jr., secretary

273] 273

274 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE [274

of the commissioners, and in 1850 were given to the New York state
library by his grandson, Dr. Thomas Hun, of Albany.
Sir William Johnson papers, 1738-1790. 26 vols.

Vols. 1-22 were bought by Lieut.-gov. Taylor at the sale of confiscated
property during the revolution. The MSS. in the other four volumes were
purchased by the state in 1863. There is an excellent index. These papers
shed much light on the colonial period after 1738 and show the feeling of
this powerful family toward the movement for independence.
George Clinton papers. 52 vols.

These papers were bought by the state of New York in 1853 and 1883.
They contain material for a military history of the revolution and show
how the loyalists were treated by the military power. Some of these
papers have been printed by the state historian.
New York assembly journals, 1693-1775.

From these papers the development of early political groups may be
traced.
Henry Stevens papers.

These papers were added to the New York state library in 1875. T^ey
contain some material about loyalism in Cumberland and Gloucester
counties.
Papers laid before the Provincial Congress, 1775-1778. 16 vols.

Vol. 24 contains the credentials of delegates for 1775; vol. 30 relates to
the associations in 1775; vols. 31-33 contain petitions presented during
the years 1775 to 1777; and vols. 34-39 are made up of miscellaneous
papers. Some of these papers appear in the Calendar of historical manu
scripts relating to the war of the Revolution.
Beverly Robinson estate, 1777-1780.

This is a detailed account of the sales of personal property belonging to
Beverly Robinson and other loyalists by the commissioners of sequestra
tion. It is the only report of this kind preserved for the use of students
of the revolution. It shows what was done in all the counties north of
New York city.
Papers relating to the Vermont controversy, 1777-1799.

These documents reflect the loyalist sentiment in the counties which
became Vermont.
Council minutes. 28 vols.

These journals give the executive, legislative and judicial proceedings of
that body and help to reveal the rise of parties in the colony. The min
utes of the council as a legislative body have been printed.
Minutes of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee oj
safety and Council of safety, 1775-1778. 10 vols.

These bodies governed New York from 1775 to 1778 and their minutes

275] BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

reflect the attitude of the revolutionary governmental bodies toward the
loyalists. These 10 vols. are transcripts from 6 vols. of original minutes
and were printed at Albany in 1842.
Revolutionary papers, 1775-1777. 1 2 vols.

These papers supplement the minutes of the extra-legal bodies. They
also were printed in 1842.

General John Lacey papers, 1773-1782.

These afford some information concerning the loyalists.

Proceedings against the disaffected persons of Queens and Richmond counties,
1776.

These minutes record the acts of a committee appointed by the Pro
vincial Congress to suppress obnoxious loyalists. The forms of summons,
the details of the trials, and the disposition of the cases are given. With
the occupation of southern New York by the British the work of the
committee ceased.

New York treasurers journat, 1775—1784. 2 vols.

This journal has a complete record of the moneys paid to the com
mittees having charge of the loyalists, and of the sums received from the
sales of confiscated and forfeited property. It is in the state library at
Albany, N. Y.

Accounts of the Neiv York treasurer, 1775-1784.

The amounts turned over to the state at various times by the commis
sioners of sequestration of personal property are here given for each
county. The sums realized from forfeited real estate are also stated.
This record is in the state comptroller's office at Albany, N. Y.

Forfeited estates sold in New York city, 1784-1787.

This is the most complete and detailed list of the loyalists whose prop
erty was forfeited, and also of the purchasers of it, that is known to exist
for any section of the state. Each piece of property sold is fully described
and the price is stated. This volume is in the register's office, New York
city.
Abstract of forfeited estates in Suffolk county.

This describes the sale of the few forfeited estates in Suffolk county
with the owners, purchasers, price and character of the property. It is in
the Old Civil List Book, in the Suffolk county clerk's office.

Report of sales by the commissioner of forfeitures of the eastern district,
1784-1789.

This report gives the names of the owners and the purchasers of for
feited estates, the date of sale, the location of the property, and a descrip
tion of it. This is in the office of the state surveyor and engineer,
Albany, N. Y.

276 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE [276

Forfeited lands — Timothy Thomson.

This is a bundle of papers in the state surveyor and engineer's office at
Albany, N. Y. The letters and deeds show that the confiscated lands be
longed to John Thompson and Mr. Fox and wife.
Forfeited estates — Minisink Patent.

This is a bundle of deeds which were given by the surveyor general to
purchasers of eighteen lots owned by James De Lancey, Oliver De Lancey
and John Weatherhead. This also is in the office of the state engineer.
Commissioners of forfeitures' memorandum of sales for the ibth and j'jth of
September, 1787.

This gives copies of the deeds granted by the commissioners for the
western district. In same place as preceding.
P. Sternberg's application for forfeited lands.

This relates to the patent of Jersey field, which was divided, and the
portion falling to loyalists forfeited and sold — about 95 lots. This led to
trouble as late as 1808. In same place as preceding.
Application for forfeited lands.

This contains applications for forfeited lands after 1808. In same place
as preceding.
Commissioners oj forfeitures — " 77."

This bundle contains certificates of the loyalty of applicants, and other
facts about them. In same place as the preceding.
Forfeited lands sold by the surveyor general — " 76."

This gives accounts of the various patents, divers applications, affidavits
of appraisers, etc. In same place as preceding.
Commissioners of forfeitures.

This has various claims and cases, certificates of loyalty, etc. In same
place as preceding.
Commissioners of forfeitures from i to 50.

This contains claims of the discovery of forfeited lands under the act of
1803 giving the finder 25 per cent. In same place as preceding.
Copies of deeds for forfeited estates — Glens Falls.

The surveys and descriptions are given. In same place as preceding.
Forfeited lands — Dutchess and Westchester counties — " 7J."

This bundle coutains the reports of the appraisers of lands sold by the
surveyor general, and the deeds. In same place as preceding.
Forfeited lands at Kayaderasseras.

This gives the deeds of lands sold by the surveyor general from 1804 to
1808. In same place as preceding.
Forfeited lands in Dutchess county.

This contains reports of the appraisements and of the surveys of the

277]

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

lands belonging to Robert Morris and wife, and B. Robinson and wife.

In same place as preceding.
Copies of deeds for forfeited lands — Lett and Magin 's patent — "j'O."

These lands were sold by the surveyor general Simeon De Witt from

1803 to 1805. In same place as preceding.
Stevens, B. F. Fac similes of Manuscripts in European Archives relating

to America, 1773-1783.
This collection contains many important references to the loyalists of

New York. In Columbia University library, and in the state library at

Albany, N. Y.
Transcript of the manuscript Books and Papers of the Commission of En

quiry into the Losses and Services of the American Loyalists held under

Acts of Parliament of 23, 25, 26, 28 and 29 of George III., preserved

amongst the Audit Office Records in the Public Record Office of England,

This is the most valuable and most complete collection of material con
cerning the loyalists now open to students. These papers include appli
cations, memorials and petitions of the loyalists to the British government
for aid and compensation. They show the loyalty, the services and the
losses in real and personal estate of the loyalists. They give the examina
tions and decisions on claims for temporary relief. They contain the
minutes of the commissioners on loyalists' claims in England and in
America, and also the determinations of the commissioners. These papers
give the first public view of authentic and official information regarding
the loyalists. Until this transcript was made, the British government held
these documents to be strictly private. The collection is very rich in
biographical material likewise. Volumes 1-13, 17-24, and 29-31, 33, 34,
41-46, deal with New York loyalists. This valuable material is in the
Lenox Library in New York city.

Proceedings before the commissioners, Pemberton and Dundas, between ij86
and 1788, at St. John's, Halifax and Montreal. 34 vols.

These are evidently the rough minutes of the commissioners, which were
afterwards transcribed, and the transcripts deposited in the Public Record
Office in England. These volumes are in the Congressional Library at
Washington, D. C.
2. PRINTED.

The printed original sources consulted are known, for the most part, and
need not be discussed at great length. Only the most important will be
given.

I. PAMPHLETS.

Chandler, A Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans.
Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ?

2;8 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE [273

Cooper, The American Querist ; or Some Questions Proposed Relative to the
Present Disputes between Great Britain and her American Colonies,
1774.

Cooper, A Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans on the Subject 01
our Political Confusions, 1774.

Cooper, A sermon preached before the University of Oxford, Dec. 13, 1776.

Inglis, Plain Truth, Addressed to the Inhabitants of America.

Inglis, Additions to Plain Truth.

Inglis, The True Interest of America Impartially Stated in Certain Stric
tures on a Pamphlet entitled Common Sense, 1776.

Inglis, Letters of Papinian in which the Conduct, Present State and Pros
pects of the American Congress are examined.

Observations on the fifth article of the Treaty with America and on the neces
sity of appointing a Judicial Enquiry into the Merits and Losses of the
American Loyalists. Printed by order of their Agents, 1783.

This pamphlet states the case of the loyalists in 1783. It is in the Lenox
Library, New York city.

Case and claim of the American loyalists impartially stated and considered,

1783.
This is in the Lenox Library, New York city.

The case oj the Right Rev. Charles Inglis against the U. S., 1 799.
This is in the Lenox Library, New York city.

The Loyal or Revolutionary Tory: being some Reflections on the

Principles and Conduct of the Tories. London, 1783.

Seabury, Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress, held
at Philadelphia, Sept. 4, 1774.

Seabury, The Congress Canvassed ; or, An Examination into the Conduct
of the Delegates, at their Grand Convention held in Philadelphia, Sept.,
'774-

Seabury, A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies.

Seabury, An Alarm to the Legislature of the Province oj New York, occa
sioned by the present Political Disturbances in North America. New
York, 1775.

Wilkins, My Services and Losses in Aid of the King's Cause during the
American Revolution. Ed. by Paul L. Ford, Brooklyn, N. Y., 1890.

These pamphlets set forth the attitude of the extreme loyalists, and are
essential to a right comprehension of their position. They show the heart
and brain of the genuine tory in the early part of the contest. The four
teen pamphlets of Joseph Galloway, of Pennsylvania, and those of other
loyalists, a description of which may be found in Tyler, Lit. His. of Am.
Rev., supplement these of the loyalists of New York.

279] BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 2/9

2. NEWSPAPERS.
Bradford's New York Gazette, 1725-1740.

This paper was inclined to champion the " court party."
Zenger's New York Weekly Journal, 1733-1744.

This journal was founded to oppose the administration of Governor
Cosby and consequently reflects the opinions of the popular party.
Game's New York Mercury, or New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury

(1763). 1752-1783.

This paper was on the patriot side when the revolution began, but it
changed to a loyalist sheet upon the arrival of the British in 1776, and was
devoted to the crown throughout the war. It is a good reflection of the
loyalists' views and acts.
Holt's New York Journal, or General Advertiser, 1766-1785.

Holt edited the first Whig newspaper in New York city, and it was con
sistent throughout the whole struggle. In 1776 it removed to Kingston,
and in 1777 to Poughkeepsie. It gives an account of the loyalists from
a whig standpoint.

Rivington's New York Gazette, or the Connecticut, New Jersey, Hudson's
River and Quebec Weekly Advertiser, or New York Loyal Gazette (1776),
or New York Royal Gazette, 1733-1787.

From the first this journal took the royal side. Its extreme toryism led
to its destruction by a whig mob in 1775. Rivington went to England to
secure a new press, and when the British were in possession of New York
city he returned and served as the royal printer throughout the revolution.
His paper was the official organ of loyalism, and set forth its extreme
views.

Other papers were printed in New York city during the revolution, but
they throw little additional light on the loyalist party. Gaine, Holt and
Rivington give three different pictures of loyalism, and are very valuable to
a proper understanding of the movement. These papers are in the Lenox
Library and the New York Historical Society Library in New York city.

3. MEMOIRS, DIARIES, ETC.

Curwen, Journal and Letters. Edited by Ward in 1842.

This is the journal of a loyalist who lived in England from 1775 to 1784,
and which, consequently, depicts loyalism from that point of view.

Hutchinson, Diary and Letters.

He was the loyalist governor of Massachusetts, and discussed loyalism
from the standpoint of a royal officer true to the crown.

Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers. Edited by Henry P.Johnson. 4vols.
This collection gives the attitude of a moderate whig toward the loyalists.

280 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Jones, History of New York during the Revolution. 2 vols.

JThis is the work of a partisan, who gives an excellent picture of the
revolution from the standpoint of a stern loyalist, but who is unreliable in
many of his facts. The appendix by Edward F. De Lancey is particularly
valuable.

Moore, Diary of the American Revolution. 2 vols.

This is a collection of material from the newspapers of the revolution,
and has much good material pertaining to the loyalists.
Morris, Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris.

This gives the attitude of a conservative whig towards the loyalists.
Simcoe, A Journal of the Operations of the Queen's Rangers from the ena

of the year ifff to the conclusion of the American war.
Smith, History of New York.

This work covers the colonial period from the bias of the Presbyterian
party.

Wilmot, Historical View of the Commission for Enquiring into the Losses,
Services, and Claims of the American Loyalists. London, 1815.

This is the best discussion of the method England took to compensate
the loyalists for their losses.

4. ARCHIVES AND COLLECTIONS.

Brymner, Canadian Archives, 1883-1889. 8 vols.

These archives are especially rich in material on the migration, settle
ment and compensation of loyalists.

Calander of historical manuscripts relating to the war of the Revolution. 2
vols.

This contains credentials of delegates, election returns, military returns,
petitions, association papers and other valuable material arranged in chro
nologic order.
Calendar of New York historical manuscripts, vol. 2.

This gives a digest of much useful matter between 1664 and 1776.
Collections of the New York Historical Society.

This collection contains much material pertaining to the loyalists. The
Golden papers are especially valuable.
De Peyster and Stone, Orderly Book of Sir John Johnson.

This is an excellent defence of Sir John Johnson and the Mohawk
loyalists.

Documentary History of the State of New York, by O'Callaghan. 4 vols.
There are some documents of value relating to loyalism in this work.
Documents relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York.
15 vols.
This work is full of material revealing the tendencies toward loyalism

2 8 1 ] BIBLIO GRAPHICAL NOTE 2 8 1

in colonial New York and also contains considerable matter on the revo
lutionary period.

Force, American Archives.

This work is very valuable for the history of the loyalists from 1774 to
1777.

Journals of the American Congress, 1774—1788.

Journal of the New York Provincial Convention and Congress.

Journal of the New York Assembly.

Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society.

New York City during the Revolution.

Onerdonk, Queens County Incidents.

Onerdonk, Revolutionary Incidents in Queens, Suffolk and Kings counties.

II. SECONDARY SOURCES.

Every secondary source, which would throw light upon the New York loyalists,
was examined so far as known. The general histories of New York, Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Canada were examined, but proved to be of little use. The
local histories of these regions, on the contrary, often furnished valuable in
formation. Conspicuous among these numerous works is Dawson, Westchester
County. Some biographies like Van Schaack, Lije of Peter Van Schaack and
Leake, Life of John Lamb, have proved helpful. Sabine, Biographical Sketches
of Loyalists of the American Revolution, has been particularly valuable. Ryerson,
Loyalists of America, has also rendered some assistance. So numerous were the
secondary sources consulted, and so comparatively small was their contribution
to the subject, that there would be little propriety in appending a list of them here.

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED •>

LOAN DEPT.

RENEWALS ONtY— TEI. MO. 642-3405

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

KST3P W

DEC 9196968

— _

RECTO

£EElUSZfLJL2-

-81

NOV2Q1979

__ . M.

LD2lA-60m-6,'69

(J9096slO)476-A-32

General Library

University of California

Berkeley

38 7/2

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY