CONTENTS—Republicanism—The lesson of the first rebellion—The late
civil war—The Loyalists; their losses and hardships—Ignored by
Americans—Unrecorded—The world kept in ignorance—American glory—
Englishmen—Question of Colonial treatment—The reason why Great
Britain failed to subdue the rebellion—Character of the rebel
bravery—The great result—Liberty in England and United States
contrasted—Slavery—The result to U. E. Loyalists—Burgoyne—
Mobocracy—Treatment from “Sons of Liberty”—Old men, women and
children—Instances of cruelty—Brutality—Rapacity—Torture—The lower
classes—“Swamp Law”—Fiendish cruelty—Worse than Butler’s Rangers—
Seward and the Fenians—Infamous falsification—Close of the war—
Recognition of independence by Great Britain—Crushed hopes of the
Loyalists—In New York—Their conduct—Evacuation day—The position of
the Loyalists—Confiscation—“Attainting”—Seizing estates—Paine—
Commissioners at Paris—British Ministry—Loyalists’ petition—King’s
speech—Division of claimants—Six classes—The number—Tardy justice—
Noble conduct of South Carolina—Impostors—Loyalists in Lower
Canada—Proclamation—The soldiers’ families—Journeyings—Meeting of
families.
THE RESULT.
Almost a hundred years have passed away since the war-cloud arose which
swept away thirteen of Britain’s colonies upon the uncertain and
tempest-tossed ocean of Republicanism. That storm is long since stilled,
as well as the hearts of those who took part therein.
While the statesman and politician may, with advantage, study the lesson
then read, and which has been but lately annotated by the United States
civil war, by the determined subjection of eight millions of
Southerners, who desired freedom to establish a new government, let it
be our humble occupation to record some of the immediate individual
results of that great tempest, of which American writers, with but few
exceptions, have never spoken fairly. Writers among them are not wanting
to give lively pen pictures of their revolutionary heroes; not only
forgetting the sufferings of the loyalists—the devoted ones, who gave up
all—property, homes, friends, all the associations of a birth-place,
rather than bow the knee to Baal; but who have wilfully misrepresented
them; have charged them with crimes, at once atrocious and unfounded.
The sufferings, the losses, the hardships, incident to pioneer life,
with the noble purposes and undeviating loyalty of the British American
tories, have never been fully related—never engaged the pen of the
faithful historian. American writers, on the contrary, have recorded in
glowing colors the deeds and actions of the “fathers of the Republic.”
To this no objection; can be made; but may we not charge those
historians with uncharitableness, with unnecessary neglect of the claims
of the loyalists to pure motives, with ignoring their brave deeds, their
devoted sufferings, and with unduly ascribing to the “king’s men”
motives base and cruel. But the sufferings of the U. E. Loyalists are
unrecorded. The world has rarely been told that they were persecuted,
their homes pillaged, their persons maltreated, their valuables seized,
their houses made desolate, their real estate taken from them, without
legal proceedings. The world has been so flooded with the writings of
Americans, describing their own excellencies and eulogizing their own
cause, that no space has been found to do simple justice to the noble
ones who preferred British rule to the uncertain and untried. Indeed, so
strongly and for so long a time has the current been flowing to swell
the ocean of American glory, that hardly a voice or pen is found doing
service for the unfortunate loyalists, who chose to endure a little
rather than rush into the vortex of rebellious strife. Even Englishmen
have so long listened to one-sided statements, that no one of them can
be found to say a word for the old tory party of America. Hence it is
that the U. E. Loyalists are very imperfectly known; their history
unwritten, their tales of sorrow unattended to, their noble doings
unsung. Had there been a hand to guide a describing pen,—to picture the
doings, the sufferings, the self-denying heroism of the loyal party; to
recount the motives underlying all they did; and had there been ears as
willing to listen, and eyes to read, and hearts to receive the facts as
those of a contrary nature have obtained, then a far different
impression would have been made, and fixed upon the world.
That the British Government was right or wise in its treatment of the
American colonies we now have every reason to doubt. At the same time,
that England might have subdued that rebellion, had she put forth her
undivided strength, there is but little reason to question. Had she not
been engaged in a formidable war with France; or even with that, had her
statesmen acquired a correct knowledge of America as to topography, and
as to the feelings and wishes of the people and their just complaints;
or had able generals been entrusted with the command of the armies,
instead of incompetent favorites; or had a little diplomacy been
practiced, and the ringleaders of the whig faction—often hungry
agitators—been conciliated by office; in either event the rebellion
might have been nipped in the bud, or easily overcome. The American
Republic owes its independence to the circumstances in which Great
Britain was then placed, and the incapacity of a few of the British
Generals, rather than to superior bravery, extraordinary military
talent, or any high-toned longing for liberty. No doubt many of the
rebelling party were brave; but it was often the bravery of the
guerilla, or the desperate adventurer.
Of the great result—the recognition of the independence of the rebelling
provinces by the mother country—we design not to speak at length. It
will always remain a question, whether it would not have been better for
the States themselves, and the world at large, if they had remained a
part of the British Empire. That the evils of which they complained
would, in due time, have been removed, upon proper representation, there
is no substantial reason to doubt. That the principles of true freedom
would have advanced and spread quite as rapidly, and that, to-day,
liberty, in the broadest sense, would have reigned in the world fully as
triumphant, the whole history of England and the United States
sufficiently attest. It was many long years after Britain had struck off
the chains of slavery before the United States reached the same point;
and then only because it became a “military necessity.” Looking at the
two nations to-day, and judging by the utterances of the two respective
people, whether enunciated in the halls of legislature, by the head of
the nation, by the bar, in the pulpit, by the press, or from the
platform; or if we be guided by the public deeds of each, it is
submitted that the more genuine ring of the metal sounds from beneath
the wide-spreading banner of old England.
The effect of the successful rebellion, to which it is intended to
refer, has reference to the United Empire Loyalists of America. And
first, the effect upon them during the war.
The defeat of Burgoyne was the first event which immediately led to
severe disaster of the loyalists. This general, with more assurance than
foresight, and perhaps more courage than military skill, succeeded, not
only in leading his army to destruction, but in placing the friendly
inhabitants on his route in such a position that no mercy was
subsequently extended to them by the ruthless rebels. When he
surrendered, instead of securing for them immunity from any harm, he
entirely neglected their interests; notwithstanding they had supplied
his troops with provision. The relentless conduct of the rebels in arms
and the whig government was bloodthirsty and vindictive. Their hate
towards those who would not take sides with them, whether in arms for
the Crown or not, was barbarous. Persons suspected of sympathy with the
tories were subjects of continued molestation. Mobocracy reigned.
Vagabond bodies of men were sent abroad to range the country, to lay
waste and destroy the property of the loyalists, imprison the suspected,
and seize the goods of the unprotected. Tarring and feathering was of
common occurrence. Massachusetts especially gained a name for cruelty
far exceeding any which has been applied to the Indians, with all their
barbarism. There was a villainous band who called themselves the “Sons
of Liberty,” who carried fire and sword—not against an open enemy in the
light of day, but to peaceful firesides in the darkness of night. Their
victims were the old men, the women and children, and the defenceless.
Old men and children were driven to the woods for shelter, or placed in
a closed room, and, with chimney stopped, smoked to suffocation. Females
were subject to insult and the most fiendish treatment. Dwellings were
fired at night, and their occupants left houseless, and exposed to the
inclemency of the weather.
Suspected persons were arrested and put to terrible torture, such as
attaching a rope to the neck and hauling the individual through the
water till insensible; or suspending him to a tree till life was almost
gone. This was frequently done with the object of extracting information
as to the whereabouts of a father or a brother, or as to the place where
money and valuables were concealed. The tales of cruelty the writer has
heard related concerning the treatment the loyal party were exposed to,
would harrow up the soul of any one possessing feelings of pity and
commiseration.
The loyalists who immediately suffered, that is, while the war was in
progress, were many. Military forts were established here and there, to
which many fled precipitately from the several States.
It is a matter of extreme astonishment how men who set up the standard
of revolt under the sacred name of liberty, could so far ignore the
principles of liberty in the treatment of innocent old men, women and
children, as we find stated by honest witnesses. The darkest tales of
savage dealing come to us from our fathers. Families, whose sole offence
consisted in being unwilling to rebel, and in being desirous to remain
faithfully neutral, were the objects of the rapacious prey of a brutal
soldiery. Their substance when not available for the rebel horde, was
scattered to the winds. Devouring fire was cast into peaceful homes. How
gross the hypocrisy, how base the motives that actuated very many of the
adventurers in rebellion. The most hellish means were adopted at times,
to force away persons of property, that the so-called “Sons of Liberty”
might enjoy their substance and homes. Attending these scenes of
desolation and refined cruelty, their imprisonments and torture, were
incidents of thrilling interest, of fearful suffering, of hairbreadth
escapes, of forlorn rescues.
The lower classes of those who rebelled were men of bold and lawless
nature: whether we pass along the shores of New England, among the
fishermen, or travel thorough the woods of Maine and New Hampshire, and
become acquainted with woodmen of the forest, or as they were called
“Loggers and Sawyers.” The spirit that animated the merchants of Boston
and Salem, in their extended operations of smuggling, lived, also, in
the reckless fishermen and woodmen; and for years before the rebellion
really commenced they had been resisting, even by physical force, the
revenue officers, who were often expelled from the woods by what was
called “swamp law.” Men with such nature, finding that their lawlessness
had become popular, and that steps were being taken to resist the
government on a general plan, were not slow to act their part. One
result of the rebellion was a determined and systematic course of
retaliation upon those who had recognized the majesty of the law. A
continued and uncompromising persecution was entered upon toward them.
No history can parallel the deeds of atrocity enacted by the villainous
“Liberty men.” Said an old lady, on the verge of the grave, and with
voice tremulous in remembrance of fiendish acts she had witnessed, “The
Rebels, on one occasion entered a house and stripped it of everything,
even the bed on which lay a woman on the point of confinement. But a
single sheet was left to cover the woman upon a winter’s night, who,
before morning became a mother.” In 1776, there arrived at Fort George,
in a starving state, Mrs. Nellis, Mrs. Secord, Mrs. Young, Mrs. Buck and
Mrs. Bonnar, with thirty-one children, whom the circumstances of the
rebellion had driven away. Talk about the cruelty of Indians and of Tory
oppression. The unprincipled rebels did well to try to hide their
ignominious deeds behind the fabrications respecting the doings of
Butler’s Rangers, and the noble-minded Brant. May we not cease to wonder
that the descendants of the rebels in the year 1866, endeavour to hound
on a pack of thieves and murderers to possess themselves of the homes
our fathers sought out for us. The self-applauding writers of the
revolutionary war, found it convenient to forget the doings of the “Sons
of Liberty” and of Sullivan, while they laid to the charge of Butler’s
Rangers and the Indians, acts of inhumanity (which we are informed on
good authority are unfounded, Butler having never abused woman or
child.) In the same manner, Secretary Seward found it desirable to
falsify dates, by saying the Fenians invaded Canada on the 6th of June,
that it might appear he had vindicated promptly their neutrality laws;
whereas they actually crossed, and engaged in battle, on the morning of
the 2nd. But as time will fully bring out the facts connected with the
first American rebellion, and place them face to face with one-sided
history, so will faithful history record the whole truth of the infamous
invasion of our country by a band of American citizens with United
States arms in their hands. Those deeds of blood, enacted by men under
the hypocritical cry of liberty have not been forgotten by the United
Empire Loyalists, but have been handed down to us, to place on record
against the cruel actors.
Hostilities ceased 19th April, 1783, and on the 20th September, the
independence of the United States was acknowledged.
The recognition of independence by Great Britain, was the death knell to
the cherished hopes of the loyalists. Many had escaped into the
provinces, and many were in the army, and not a few were in England.
Although the majority of them had been driven away, a few still remained
in those places, yet held by the British forces, as New York. “When the
news of peace became known, the city presented a scene of distress not
easily described. Adherents to the Crown, who were in the army, tore the
lapels from their coats and stamped them under their feet, and exclaimed
that they were ruined; others cried out they had sacrificed everything
to prove their loyalty, and were now left to shift for themselves,
without the friendship of their king or country. Previous to the
evacuation, and in September, upwards of 12,000 men, women, and
children, embarked at the city, at Long and Staten Islands, for Nova
Scotia and the Bahamas,” and for Canada. “Some of these victims to civil
war tried to make merry at their doom, by saying they were bound to a
lovely country, where there are nine months winter and three months cold
weather every year, while others, in their desperation tore down their
houses, and had they not been prevented, would have carried off the
bricks of which they were built.” The British had possessed New York
since 15th September, 1776, and on the 25th November, 1783, yielded it
up to the Americans. This is “Evacuation day.”
When Cornwallis surrendered he vainly tried to obtain a promise of
protection for the Loyal Americans, who, in part, formed his army.
Failing in this, he sent an armed vessel away with a large number.
At this time beside the many who had become refugees, there were some
loyalists scattered through the States. Many of these remained in the
now Independent States, and many of them would have returned, to become
faithful citizens under the new order of things, had they been allowed
so to do. But the young Republic knew not how to be magnanimous to those
whom the fortunes of war had left in great distress—whom they had
conquered, and the United Empire Loyalists were made aliens from their
native homes. Their property must be confiscated, and many being large
land owners, rich prizes were thus secured. While the conflict continued
to rage there was some excuse, but when war had ceased, and everything
had been accomplished that the most craving rebel could wish, it was a
ruthless, an ungenerous, nay, a base proceeding on the part of the
revolutionists, to force away their very brethren, often related by the
ties of consanguinity. But it was a spirit as unprincipled as this,
which instigated the rebellion, and which characterized the vast
majority of those who fought under the sacred name of liberty, and such
was the spirit of the conquerors.
The successful rebels determined to possess themselves of the lands and
property of the loyalists, even in violation of treaty. The action of
Congress was sufficiently high-handed and wanting in generosity; but the
proceedings of the State Legislatures, with a few exceptions, were
execrable—characterized by ignoble and vindictive passion.
The Legislatures of each state took early steps to punish the adherents
of Britain, to dispossess them of their property, and to banish them.
Massachusetts took the lead in dealing severely against the loyalists. A
rebel magistrates’ warrant was sufficient to banish one. Hundreds of
Massachusetts Loyalists were prohibited from returning on penalty of
imprisonment and even death. And the other States were active in
“attainting” and confiscating, often without the form of trial. Each
State carried on its function as a government, and trials ought to have
been granted, in common justice to every one. But the Whigs were
intolerant, hot-headed, malevolent, unforgiving. It has been said that
“if it be conceded that rebellion against England was right, then every
step necessary to success was justifiable.” If we grant all this there
remains the fact that after success had crowned rebellion, persecution
and confiscation continued. New York, on the 12th May, 1784, passed “An
act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited estates within
the States.” The powers consisted in the appointment of “commissioners
of forfeitures.” Among those who lost their land was one Davoe. He had
300 acres near New York, twenty miles, which was confiscated and given
to the notorious Tom Paine, the infidel, whose extreme liberal views
expressed in his work, “Common Sense,” made him the friend of
Washington, and revolutionists generally. Paine, after taking part in
the French Revolutions, came, in 1802, to his place in New York, where
he enjoyed the loyalists’ confiscated property until his death, 8th
June, 1809.
In the terms of peace signed at Paris, there was no security effected
for the losses sustained by the American Loyalists.
As Burgoyne at his inglorious surrender at Saratoga, thought not of the
innocent inhabitants of the Mohawk and Hudson, who had identified
themselves with the loyal cause, and supplied his troops with
provisions, and left them to the merciless “Sons of Liberty,” to be
despoiled of their all, and exposed to fearful cruelty, so at the last,
when the British Government relinquished the attempt to subdue
rebellion, the American Loyalists were of remote consideration. We can
gather now but the outlines of this great wrong done unto noble men. The
particulars are buried in the wreck of fortune, and of happiness,
respecting all worldly matters. The after life of the loyalists was of
too earnest a nature to allow time to place on record the sufferings,
and the wanderings of the disinherited. The lost cause did not stimulate
men to draw upon imagination, such as may be found in gaudy-hued
descriptions of American revolutionary heroes, male and female. But
there is sufficient of facts recorded, and engraven by the iron pen of
extreme anguish upon hearts, that were of flesh, to stamp the
persecutors with infamy, and mark the refugees, that clustered around
the border forts, and found homes at Sorel, Lachine, and Montreal, with
the highest attributes of patriotism and love of country.
The conduct of the ministry, and the commissioners at Paris is open to
the severest censure. They left the claims of the loyalists to be
decided by the American Congress. We may allow them the credit of having
held the belief, that this body would be actuated by a feeling of
justice and right, but the error was a grave one, the wrong grievous and
hard to be endured. In pursuing this course, the British ministry did
not escape condemnation by members of Parliament, and a feeling of
sympathy was evoked that led to a tardy dispensing of justice. Lord
North said “that never were the honor, the principles, the policy of a
nation, so grossly abused as in the desertion of those men, who are now
exposed to every punishment that desertion and poverty can inflict,
because they were not rebels.” Mr. Sheridan “execrated the treatment of
those unfortunate men, who, without the least notice taken of their
civil and religious rights, were handed over as subjects to a power that
would not fail to take vengeance on them for their zeal and attachment
to the religion and government of the mother country,” “and he called it
a crime to deliver them over to confiscation, tyranny, resentment and
oppression.” Lord Loughborough said that “in ancient nor modern history
had there been so shameful a desertion of men who had sacrificed all to
their duty and to their reliance upon British faith.” Others, in terms
of equal severity, denounced the ministry in Parliament for their
neglect. The ministry admitted it all, but excused themselves by the
plea that “a part must be wounded, that the whole of the empire may not
perish”—that they “had but the alternative, either to accept the terms
proposed, or continue the war.”
“A number of loyalists in England, came to the United States to claim
restitution of their estates, but their applications were unheeded,”
except to imprison, and banish them.
The treaty of peace signed, without any provision for the suffering
loyalists, they at once took steps to petition the Imperial Parliament
for justice. “They organized an agency, and appointed a Committee,
composed of one delegate, or agent from each of the thirteen States, to
enlighten the British public.” “At the opening of Parliament the King,
in his speech from the throne, alluded to the ‘American sufferers’ and
trusted generous attention would be shewn to them.” An act was
consequently passed creating a “Board of Commissioners” to examine the
claims preferred. The claimants were divided into six classes.
“_First Class._—Those who had rendered service to Great Britain.”
“_Second Class._—Those who had borne arms for Great Britain.”
“_Third Class._—Uniform Loyalists.”
“_Fourth Class._—Loyal British subjects residents in Great Britain.”
“_Fifth Class._—Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States,
but afterward joined the British.”
“_Sixth Class._—Loyalists who had borne arms for the American States,
and afterwards joined the British navy or army.”
The claimants had to state in writing, and specifically the nature of
their losses. Great and unnecessary caution was observed by the Board.
The rigid rules of examinations caused much dissatisfaction and gave the
Board the name of “Inquisition.”
The 26th of March, 1784, was the latest period for presenting claims,
which was allowed, and on or before that day, the number of claimants
was two thousand and sixty-three. A “second report which was made in
December of the same year, shows that one hundred and twenty-eight
additional cases had been disposed of.” In May and July 1865, one
hundred and twenty-two cases more were disposed of. In April 1786, one
hundred and forty more were attended to. The commissioners proceeded
with their investigations during the years 1786 and 1787. “Meantime” and
to her honor be it said “South Carolina had restored the estates of
several of her loyalists.”
Years passed away before the commissioners had decided upon all the
claims, and great and loud was the complaint made by the claimants. The
press was invoked to secure a more prompt concession of justice,
pamphlets were published on their behalf, and one printed in 1788, five
years after the peace, contained the following: “It is well that this
delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and shocking events. A
number of the sufferers have been driven by it into insanity, and become
their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless widows and
orphans to subsist upon the cold charity of strangers. Others have been
sent to cultivate a wilderness for their subsistence, without having the
means, and compelled through want, to throw themselves on the mercy of
the American States, and the charity of their former friends, to support
the life which might have been made comfortable by the money long since
due from the British Government, and many others, with their families
are barely subsisting upon a temporary allowance from government, a mere
pittance when compared with the sum due them.”
The total number of claimants was 5,072, of whom 924 withdrew or failed
to make good the claim. The sum of money allowed was £3,294,452. We have
seen there was, in addition, given to the widows and orphans, between
20,000 and 30,000 pounds.
There is no doubt that a certain number of the claimants were impostors,
while many asked remuneration above what their losses had actually been,
and this caused the commissioners to examine more closely the claims
proffered. But it is submitted that they ought, in dealing with the
money already granted by a considerate Parliament, to have leaned on the
side of clemency.
At the close of the contest there were a large number of Refugees in
Lower Canada, especially at Fort St. John, about twenty-nine miles from
Montreal. In the main these were American born, and principally from the
New England States; yet there were representatives from England,
Ireland, Scotland and Germany. Besides the Refugees, there were several
Provincial Corps, which were no longer to be retained in the service,
but to be disbanded. Of these there was the 84th, often called Johnson’s
regiment, this was 800 strong, mostly Dutch, from the Mohawk, and
Hudson, descendants of the old stock. This regiment consisted of two
corps, one under Major Jessup, stationed at St. John’s, and the other
under Rogers, a part of which at least, was stationed at Fort Oswego.
Jessup’s corps became the first pioneers upon the St. Lawrence, and
Rogers among the first along the Bay of Quinté. Both settled in 1784.
There were other troops stationed at St. John’s, and likewise not a few
who had discharged irregular, but important duties, as scouts, and in
other ways.
It has been generally estimated that at the close of the struggle, and
as a result, there were distributed of American Loyalists upon the
shores of Canada, about 10,000. At the first, most of these were in
Lower Canada, but there were likewise a few at the frontier forts upon
the Upper waters, and a few detached squatters. Then, “there was not a
single tree cut from the (present) Lower Province line to Kingston, 150
miles; and at Kingston there were but a few surrounding huts; and from
thence all around Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, with the exception of a
few Indian huts on some desolate spot of hunting ground, all was a dense
wilderness.” (Ex Sheriff Sherwood.)
“A proclamation was issued,” says Croil in his history of Dundas, “that
all who wished to continue their allegiance to Britain, should peaceably
rendezvous at certain points on the frontiers. These were, Sackets
Harbour, Carleton Island, Oswego and Niagara, on the Upper Canada
confines; and Isle Aux Nois, on the borders of Lower Canada. Jessup’s
Corps was stationed at Isle Aux Nois, and late in the autumn of 1783,
the soldiers were joined by their wives and little ones, who had
wandered the weary way on foot, to Whitehall, through swamps and
forest,—beset with difficulties, dangers, and privations innumerable.
The soldiers met them there with boats, and conveyed them the rest of
their journey by water, through Lake Champlain. Imagination fails us
when we attempt to form an idea of the emotions that filled their
hearts, as families, that had formerly lived happily together,
surrounded with peace and plenty, and had been separated by the rude
hand of war, now met each other’s embrace, in circumstances of abject
poverty. A boisterous passage was before them, in open boats, exposed to
the rigors of the season—a dreary prospect of the coming winter, to be
spent in pent up barracks, and a certainty should they be spared, of
undergoing a lifetime of such hardships, toil and privation, as are
inseparable from the settlement of a new country.” As soon as the
journey was accomplished, the soldiers and their families, were embarked
in boats, sent down to Richelieu to Sorel, thence to Montreal, and on to
Cornwall, by the laborious and tedious route of the St. Lawrence. (See
settlement of Ernest town.)