CONTENTS—Definition—A division—Their principles—Our position—
Ancestry—Dutch—Puritans—Huguenots—New Rochelle—English writers—
Talbot—Falsehoods—Canadian and English ancestry—Howison—Maligner—
Gourlay’s reply—Palatines—Old names.
ANCESTRY OF THE U. E. LOYALISTS.
Under this designation allusion is made to all who left, or were
compelled to leave, the revolting colonies, and Independent States, and
who sought a home in the wilderness of Canada. There is, however, a
class which will be specially referred to, who, in subsequent years,
were placed upon the “U. E. list,” and who, by virtue thereof, secured
important privileges to themselves and family.
The United Empire Loyalist, was one who advocated, or wished to have
maintained, the _unity of the British empire_, who felt as much a Briton
in the colony of America, as if he were in old England; who desired to
perpetuate British rule in America; not blindly believing that no
imperfections could exist in such rule, but desiring to seek reform in a
conservative spirit. This class, we have seen, became, as the tide of
rebellion gained strength and violence, exceedingly obnoxious to those
in rebellion against their King and country. It will be convenient to
divide them into three classes, viz., (1.) Those who were forced to
leave during the contest, many of whom took part in the war; (2.) Those
who were driven away after the war, because they were known or suspected
to have sympathy with the loyalist party, and (3.) Those who would not
remain in the Republic, who voluntarily forsook the land of their birth
or adoption, and removed to a country which acknowledged the sovereignty
of the King of England. Many of this noble class relinquished
comfortable homes, rather than live under an alien flag; they preferred,
above all measure, to enter a wilderness and hew out a new home. They
would live anywhere, endure any toil, undergo any privation, so long as
they were in the King’s dominion, and the good old flag waved over their
head, and their families. It was oft declared that their bones should
lie on the King’s soil. These sentiments are taken, not from the
imagination, but from the accumulated testimony of those who have
supplied statements of family history. Elsewhere it has been shewn how
cruel were the persecutions made against the “tories,” how relentless
the spirit of vengefulness. All this, it may be said by some, should be
forgotten,—buried in the past, with the whigs and tories, both of whom
committed errors and outrages. Under certain circumstances this would be
the proper course—the course indicated by the great Ruler; but,
regarding the United States in the light derived from the statesmen,
orators, and the press, it cannot for a moment be allowed. Until the
descendants of those who successfully rebelled in 1776, cease to vilify
our fathers; until they can find other subject matter for their fourth
of July orations, than foul abuse of our country; until they can produce
school-books which are not stained by unjust and dishonest
representations; and books of a religious nature which are not marred by
unchristian, not to say untruthful, statements respecting Britain and
her colonies. Until the “Great Republic” can rise above the petty course
of perpetuating old feuds, we cannot—we whose fathers suffered, cannot
be required to shut our mouths, and thereby seemingly acquiesce in their
uncharitable and malignant charges against the U. E. Loyalists.
Washington was a rebel as much as Jefferson Davis, and history will
accord to the latter a character as honorable and distinguished as the
former. Washington succeeded against a power that put not forth the
gigantic efforts which the United States did to subjugate the States
over which Jefferson Davis presided. By the events of the civil war in
the United States, we, the descendants of those who occupied the same
relative position in the American Revolution, feel it right to be
guided.
The most of the loyalists were Americans by birth. Their feelings of
attachment to the realm, preponderated over the attachments which bound
them to the homes of their childhood and maturer years. The great
majority of those who settled Upper Canada were from the Provinces of
New York, Pennsylvania, and the New England States. New York, originally
a Dutch colony, had many loyal sons. Indeed this state was dragged into
the rebellion. It follows that a goodly number of the settlers around
the bay were of Dutch extraction, and possessed all the honesty and
industry peculiar to that people. The U. E. list, and the larger list of
refugees, include a large number of names unmistakably Dutch. But there
came from this state as well, many a true son of England, Ireland, and
Scotland, with a sprinkling of the Huguenots, and the Germans, the last
of whom began to emigrate to America in 1710. Many of the settlers of
Upper Canada may point with pride to their Dutch forefathers. Many
Canadians have an equal right also to boast of their Puritan fathers.
They more especially may point to the justice-loving ones who came to
America with honest William Penn, whose son was also a refugee from the
State his father founded, not by taking forceable possession, but by
_buying_ the land from the Indians.
Among the devoted band of firm adherents to the British Crown were not a
few of the descendants of the Huguenots, whose fathers had been
expatriated by the King of France, because they were Protestants, and
who had found safe homes in England. So early as 1686, a number of
Huguenots found their way to America. And from time to time, accessions
were made to the number by emigration. They mostly settled in
Westchester County, New York, in 1689, where a tract of land was
purchased for them by Jacob Leisler, of the Admiralty, and there founded
a town called New Rochelle, after Rochelle in France, noted for the
stand its inhabitants took against Roman Catholicism. In 1700, New
Rochelle had become quite a place, and here was found, when the
rebellion had commenced, “a vast number of Militia officers loyal to the
backbone.”—(Ruttan).
The ancestry of the U. E. Loyalists has been called in question, not by
the rebels alone, but by British subjects. The few instances constitute,
fortunately, but exceptions to a general rule. Travelers from Great
Britain have repeatedly, perhaps we may say persistently, displayed an
astonishing amount of ignorance of the people of Canada and its society.
Allowance can be made for a certain amount of egotism, but downright
bias is unworthy a high-minded writer. Incapable of examining any
subject, except from a stand point exclusively English, they have found
no difficulty in attributing the most unworthy and even scandalous
causes to a state of society to them unusual, and seemingly abnormal.
Perhaps no writer has so disgraced himself, in writing about Canada, as
Talbot. Certainly no one more ignobly essayed to injure Canadian
reputation in Great Britain than he. “Mr. Talbot has stated in his book
that most of the Canadians are descended from private soldiers or
settlers, or the illegitimate offspring of some gentlemen, or his
servant.” The writer had no scruples in publishing a falsehood. Full
well he knew how noble had been the conduct of the U. E. Loyalists as a
class; who relinquished property, homes,—everything for a cause dear to
their heart. Private soldiers indeed! They thought it no disgrace to
enter the ranks to help to suppress an unrighteous rebellion. And the
descendants of the private soldiers feel it an honor to claim them for
sires. Mr. Talbot, we are informed, came to Canada to speculate in
lands; and his record does not justify him in casting a stigma upon the
fathers of Canada. Could we accept a slanderous statement as true, yet
the question might be raised:—Is not their origin as good as many of the
great houses of Great Britain would be found, were we enabled to trace
back their pedigree. Probably, at the present time, and perhaps at no
time, did more than a few read the pages of Mr. Talbot’s production. But
lest there might come a time when the false statements should be
reiterated, we felt it our duty to thus advert to the subject.
Another writer, to whom it may be well to refer, is one Dr. John
Howison, who wrote _Sketches of Upper Canada_. His knowledge of Canada
was pretty much confined to the Niagara district. Hear what the great
(?) man said of the inhabitants. “They are still the untutored
incorrigible beings that they probably were, when the ruffian remnant of
a disbanded regiment, or the outlawed refuse of some European nation,
they sought refuge in the wilds of Upper Canada, aware that they would
neither find means of subsistence, nor be countenanced in any civilized
country. Their original depravity has been confirmed and increased by
the circumstances in which they are now placed.” This is a pleasant
picture that the accomplished doctor draws of our forefathers. The very
flagrancy of the falsehood has rendered the above statement as harmless
as the doctor’s reputation is unknown. It is but too common a story for
a stupid Englishman, with no other ideas than those derived from supreme
egotism, to pass through our country, and after merely glancing at the
outside of everything, proceed to give an account of the people of
Canada. But this Howison was either guilty of drawing his views from
Yankee sources, or of giving vent to some spiteful feeling. Robert
Gourlay, who was no tory, referring to the above statement, speaks in
this way:—“It is not true, it is not fair, it is not discreet. The first
settlers of Upper Canada, in my opinion, were wrong headed men as to
politics; but they were far from being bad-hearted men, and anything but
“the ruffian remnant of a disbanded regiment.” They were soldiers who
had done their duty: who had regarded with reverence their oath of
allegiance; who had risked their lives a hundred times over in support
of their principles; who had sacrificed all which the world in general
holds dear, to maintain their loyalty and honor. They were anything but
the “outlawed refuse of some European nation.” They adhered to the laws
of Britain; and for the laws of Britain they bled. They did not “seek
refuge in the wilds of Upper Canada, aware they would neither find means
of subsistence, nor be countenanced in any civilized country.” It is a
libel on the British Government to say they sought refuge, and a libel
on common sense to say that men, who resolved to earn their bread by
labour, under the worst circumstances in the world, could not find means
of subsistence anywhere else. The whole passage is untrue, is shameful,
and Dr. Howison should apologize for it in the public prints of this
country. These very farmers whom he scandalizes so cruelly, stood up for
British Government most noble during the late war, (1812), many of them
lost their all at that time (in Niagara District), and to many of them
the British Government is now deeply indebted. The mass of first
settlers in Upper Canada were true men, and to this day there is a
peculiar cast of goodness in their natures, which distinguishes them
from their neighbours in the United States. There were among them
ruffians of the very worst description. His Majesty’s ministers needed
spies, and horse stealers, and liars, and perjured villains; and America
furnished such characters, just as England can furnish an Oliver and an
Edward. Why should a whole people be slandered because of a few? Dr.
Howison wrote in Canada only to trifle, and now we see the consummation,
we see a book very well written; very readable as a romance—the tale of
a weak man; but as it affects men, worse than trifling—scandalous. To
say all the ill he could of Canada, and no good of it is unfair—is
deceitful—after all, in his parting exclamations, he “spoke about the
happy shores of Canada.” The refined Dr. Howison, it would seem,
remembered “many civilities” from the Canadians; but because he could
not appreciate the nobility of nature when crowned by the rough
circumstances of pioneer life, he must needs write a libel. No doubt his
mind was influenced by Yankee tales of Butlers’ Rangers, and perhaps his
exquisite sensibility was wounded, forsooth, because a Canadian would
not touch his hat to him.” Robert Gourlay was a friend to Canada, a
friend to humanity; he was not always right; but he was far more correct
while in Canada than those who persecuted him. He was a patient and
close observer, and made himself thoroughly acquainted with Canada, and
his statement in reply to Howison’s utterances are fully satisfying.
What was true of the settlers at Niagara, must remain true of the whole
class of U. E. Loyalists. Notwithstanding the many adverse
circumstances—the earnest contest for life, the daily struggle for food,
their isolation from the influences of civilized life, the absence of
regular ministers of the gospel, notwithstanding all, the old soldiers
constituted a band of pioneers infinitely better than those who form the
outer belt of settlers, at the present day, in the Western States.
As intimated, not a few of the U. E. Loyalists were descendants of those
who had likewise been driven, by persecution, from their homes. There
were not only the children of the noble old Huguenots, but a good many
German Irishmen, called Palatines. They originally came from the
Palatinate of the Rhine, once the possession of the House of Palatine.
The Palatines were Protestants, and during the seventeenth century, were
exposed to the most cruel barbarities. They fled in thousands to the
friendly camp of the Duke of Marlborough, when commander of the allied
armies. In 1709, Queen Anne sent a fleet to Rotterdam for the distressed
Palatines, and carried about 7,000 to England. Of these, 3,000 were sent
to New York, but finally found homes in Pennsylvania, among the Quakers.
The names of some of these are before us, and it may be seen they are
familiar ones, although some of them are somewhat altered.
Frantz Lucas, Deitrich Klein, Conrad Frederick, Ludwig, Henrich Newkirk,
Keiser, John Mortan, Casper Hartwig, Christoper Warner, Hermanus
Hoffman, Rudolph Neff, Schmidt, Schumacher, Lenhard, John Peter Zenger,
Philip Muller, Schaffer, Peter Wagner, Straule, Henrich Man, Eberhard,
Kremer, Franke Ross, Peter Becker, Christian Meyer, Godfry Fidler,
Weller, George Mathias, Christo, Hagedom, Fink, John William Dill,
Bernard, Conradt, Bellinger.
“Of those who remained, five hundred families removed to Ireland, and
settled, principally, in the County of Limerick.” Among their names we
find, Baker, Barham, Barrabier, Bennoser, Bethel, Bowen, Bowman,
Bovinezer, Brethower, Cole, Coach, Corneil, Cronsberry, Dobe, Dulmage,
Embury, Fizzle, Grunse, Grier, Heck, Hoffman, Hifle, Heavener, Ozier,
(probably Lazier of our day), Lawrence, Lowes, Rhineheart, Rose,
Rodenbucher, Ruckle, Switzer, Sparling, Stack, St. John, St. Ledger,
Strongle, Sleeper, Shoemaker, Shier, Smeltzer, Shoultace, Shavewise,
Tesby, (probably Detlor of our day), Tettler, Urshelbaugh, Williams, and
Young.
A certain number of the Palatines settled at the German Flats, many of
whom, being Loyalists, were obliged to leave; and become pioneers in
Canada. Likewise, were there many from other parts of the State, and
from Pennsylvania.
In the early history of New York State, may be found many names,
generally Dutch-like, closely resembling those of the first settlers of
Western Canada.
In a letter, dated “Albany, 30 July, 1689,” we find the names of Capt.
Bleeker and D. Myers.
At a convention at Albany, Oct. 24, 1669, was present, among others,
Gert Ryerse, Jan Jense Bleeker.
“Proposals made to ye people, Albany, ye 5 day of November, 1689, by 40
inhabitants,” among which is Jacob Vanden Bogaert.
“At a meeting, at Albany, 28th March, 1690,” were present, Gert Ryersen,
John Pietersen, Hendrick Hedgeman, (Hagerman).
At a meeting in Albany, after the massacre of Schenectady, February 9,
1690, to arrange for defending against the French and Indians, and to
bury the dead; there were, among 60 others present, D. Wessels, Rector,
J. Bleecker, Ald. Ryckman, Ens. Bennet.
In the list of those killed at Schenectady, are several of the Vroomans,
Symon, Skemerhoorn. “Taken prisoners at Skinnechtady, and carried to
Canada ye 9th day of February, 1689/90.” “John Wemp, sonne of Myndt & 2
negroes, and 26 others.”
In a list of officers in the Province of New York, 1693, members of
Council—are found Phillips, Brock, Lawrence, Young, Marshall, Shaw,
Evetts, (probably Everit), Handcock, Dirck Wessels, Recorder at Albany;
Beekman, Howell, Barker, Platt, Whitehead, Harrison, Hageman, Strycker,
Willet. Among the militia officers, N. Yorrk, 1700, we find Booth,
Moore, Wheler, Hubbs, Kechum, Frederick, Daniel Wright; Robert Coles;
Lake, Hegemen, Evert, Bogardus, Hosbrooke, Rose.
List of inhabitants in County of Orange, 1702, we find—Geritssen,
(Garrison), Reynerssen, (Ryerson), Ceniff, Mieyer, (Meyer,) Weller,
Coeper, Merritt.
Freeholders of the city and county of Albany, 1720, Williams, Van Alen,
Holland, Collins, Van Dyke, several Bleeker’s; Cornelius Boarghaert,
Vandusen, Meebe, Weemp, (Wemp), Trueax, Van Valkenburgh, Huyck,
Gardimer, Dingmans, VanAlstine, Coonradt, Ham, Luyke, Deeker,
Esselstine, Fritts, Quackenboes, (Quackenbush), Van Rensalaer.
In the war of the Indians, at the battle of Point Pleasant, 1774, there
was killed, among others, Ensign Candiff.
The following we take from the _Schenectady Evening Star_:
VALLEY OF THE MOHAWK IN OLDEN TIMES.—_Schoharie_—_The Vroomans_.—
When the Schoharie settlements were invaded by the British, under
Colonel Butler, in the year 1789, the following persons, among
others, were murdered by the Indians: Tunis Vrooman, his wife and
son, and on this occasion Ephraim Vrooman and his two sons,
Bartholomew, Josias and John Vrooman, Bartholomew Vrooman, Jr., and
his wife and son Jacob, were taken prisoners. The wife and daughter
of Ephraim Vrooman was killed by an Indian named Seth Hendrick. Mr.
E. Vrooman, while on his way to Canada, whither he was carried in
captivity, was under the immediate charge of Seth Hendrick, who
treated him with much kindness. There were two or three Indians who
accompanied Seth. These before they arrived at their destination,
grew tired of their prisoner, and proposed to despatch him. Mr.
Vrooman overheard the conversation, which was conducted in a
whisper, and repeated it to Hendrick. Hendrick assured him in the
most positive manner, that “not a hair of his head should be
touched,” and gave his companions a severe reprimand for their
ungenerous conspiracy. After the termination of the Revolutionary
contest, Hendrick paid Mr. Vrooman a visit, and apologised for his
conduct during the war, in the strong, metaphorical language of his
nation: “The tomahawk,” said he, “is used only in war; in time of
peace it is buried; it cuts down the sturdy oak as well as the
tender vine; but I (laying his hand on Mr. Vrooman’s shoulder) saved
the oak.”
“EVA’S KILL.—The creek which runs through the village of Cranesville
has, for the last ninety years, been known as Eva’s Kill, or creek.
It owes this name to the circumstance of a woman named Eva being
murdered near its banks. In the year 1755 Mrs. Van Alstine, from
Canojoharie, traveled through this place on her way to this city to
visit her parents. She was on horseback, and had her daughter with
her, a child about four years of age. A party of French and Indians
had just arrived from Canada, and were prowling about with murderous
designs on the defenceless inhabitants of the Mohawk Valley. Espying
Mrs. Van Alstine, they marked her for their prey. They pounced upon,
wounded and scalped her, left her as they supposed, dead on the
margin of the creek which bears her name. Her daughter they took to
Canada. After they had departed, Mrs. Van Alstine partially
recovered, and mustered strength enough to crawl to the river, on
the opposite shore of which she saw some men standing, to whom she
beckoned. She feared to speak lest she should be overheard by her
enemies who were still in the neighborhood. These men came over
cautiously, and conveyed her safely to her agonized parents. She
lingered nine or ten days in a state of extreme suffering, when she
gave up the ghost. Her daughter’s life was spared, and she, in time,
was restored to her friends.”
In 1750–60, are found the names of Jordan, Dunham, Grant, Harkamer,
Spenser, Peterson, Wilson, Church, Devenport, Kemp, Gibson.
Census of New York, about 1703. Amongst others, Vanhorn, Larrance,
Loukes, Vandewater, White, Hams, Wessels, Wm. Taylor, Johnston, Vesey,
Bogert, Oastrom, Waldron, Davis, Marshall, Clapp.
_Census of Long Island, 1673._—Jacobs, Carman, Symonds, Beedel, Allen,
Williams, Valentyn, Ellesson, (probably Allison), Osborne, Hobbs,
Soddard, Ellison, Foster, Mott, Applebe, Persell, Truax, Hoyt.
_The Roll of those who have taken the oath of allegiance, September,
1687_: Peter Stryker, native of the Province; Cornelis Pertise,
(Peterson), native; Beakman, native; Gerrit Dorlant, native; Joseph
Hagemen, (Hagerman), 37 years; Adrien Ryerse, 41 years. Living in
Breucklyn (Brooklyn): Covert, native; Bogaert, 35 years; Jan Fredericks,
35 years; Pieter Corson native; Caspere, (Casper); Jacobus Vande Water,
(Vandewater), native; Dirck Janse Waertman, (Wartman), 40 years; Van
Clief, De Witt, Loyse, Waldron, Willensen, Badgely, Culver, Jessop,
Rogers, Diamond, Erle, Butler, Johnes (Jones), Whiting; Arnold,
Washbourn, Way, Harton, Booth, Bradly, Goldsmith, Giles, Baily, Osmond,
Carey, Case, Miller, Garitson.