FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[91]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., p. 325."About four weeks after Colonel Zebulon Butler's return, some hundreds of Indians, a large body of Tories, and about fifty regulars, entered Cherry Valley, within the State of New York. They made an unsuccessful attempt on Fort Alden; but they killed and scalped thirty-two of the inhabitants, mostly women and children; and also Colonel Alden and ten soldiers."—Ib., p. 325. Then, on the side of the continentals, "Colonel G. Van Shaick, with fifty-five men, marched from Fort Schuyler to the Onondago settlements, and on the 19th of April, 1779, burnt the whole, consisting of about fifty houses, together with a large quantity of provisions. Horses and stock of every kind were killed. The arms and ammunition of the Indians were either destroyed or brought off, and their settlements were laid waste. Twelve Indians were killed and thirty-four made prisoners. This expedition was performed in less than six days, and without the loss of a man."—Ib., pp. 326, 327.[92]Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. III., Chap. xli., pp. 436-439.[93]Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. x., pp. 230, 231, 232.Mr. Bancroft's tame account of "the great expedition" against the Five Nations, limiting it to a chastisement of the Senecas, can only be accounted for from his contempt of General Sullivan, his desire to pass over as slightly as possible an expedition of destruction so disproportionate to the alleged cause of it, and against a whole rural and agricultural people for the alleged depredations of some of them. There were, as might be expected, marauding parties along the borders on the part of both the Indians and Americans, but the former always seem to have suffered more, and the latter to have excelled the former in their own traditionary mode of savage warfare."Other expeditions," says Mr. Holmes, "besides this decisive one were conducted against the Indians in course of the year. In April, Colonel Van Shaick, with fifty-five men, marched from Fort Schuyler, and burnt the whole Onondago settlements, consisting of about fifty houses, with a large quantity of provisions, killed twelve Indians and made thirty-four prisoners, without the loss of a single man. In the month of August, Colonel Broadhead made a successful expedition against the Mingo, Munsey, and Seneca Indians." (American Annals, Vol. II., p. 302.)[94]Mr. Bancroft says that "the British Rangers and men of the Six Nations (who constructed the defensive breastwork at Newton)were in all about800." (History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. x, p. 232.)It was certainly no great feat of military courage and skill for 5,000 men, with the aid of artillery, to defeat and disperse 800 Indians and Tories, without artillery, and then ravage and devastate an undefended country.[95]Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxix., pp. 287-289.[96]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 327-329.We will select from the same historian, though the same facts may be found in other histories of the time, a few examples in addition to those already given of the terrible retribution which the Americans inflicted upon the Indians in retaliation for any incursions which they may have made into the white settlements."The Cherokee Indians made an incursion into Ninety-Six district, in South Carolina, massacred some families and burned several houses. General Pickens, in 1781, collected a party of the militia, and penetrated into their country. This he accomplished in fourteen days, at the head of 394 horsemen. In that short space he burned thirteen towns and villages, killed upwards of forty Indians, and took a number of prisoners. Not one of his party was killed, and only two were wounded. The Americans did not expend over two pounds of ammunition, and yet only three Indians escaped after having been once seen. * *"Towards the end of the war, in 1782, there was a barbarous and unprovoked massacre of some civilized Indians who had settled near the Muskingum. These, under the influence of some pious missionaries of the Moravian persuasion, had been formed into some degree of religious order. They abhorred war, and would take no part therein, giving for a reason that 'the Great Spirit did not make men to destroy men, but to love and assist each other.' From love of peace they advised those of their own colour, who were bent on war, to desist from it. They were also led from humanity to inform the white people of their danger, when they knew their settlements were about to be invaded. This provoked the hostile (American) Indians to such a degree, that they carried these quite away from Muskingum to a bank of the Sandusky Creek. They, finding corn dear and scarce in their new habitations, obtained liberty to come back in the fall of the same year to Muskingum, that they might collect the crops they had planted before their removal."While the white (American) people at and near the Monongahela heard that a number of Indians were at the Moravian towns on the Muskingum, they gave out that their intentions were hostile. Without any further enquiry, 160 of them crossed the Ohio, and put to death these harmless, inoffensive people, though they made no resistance. In conformity to their religious principles, these Moravians submitted to their hard fate, without attempting to destroy their murderers. Upwards of ninety of this pacific race were killed by men who, while they called themselves Christians, were more deserving of the name of savages than those whom they inhumanly murdered." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 330-332.)Mr. Hildreth gives the following account of the proceedings of the eighty or ninety men who murdered the peaceful Indians: "Arrived at the middle Moravian village, they found a party of Christian Indians gathering corn. The Indians at another neighbouring village were sent for, and the whole were placed together in two houses. A council was then held to decide upon their fate. Williamson, their Commander, heretofore accused of too great lenity to the Indians, referred the matter to his men. Only sixteen voted for mercy; all the rest, professing a faith common on the frontier, that 'an Indian has no more soul than a buffalo,' were for murder. They rushed on their prey, scalping-knife in hand, and upwards of ninety Indians, men, women, and children, soon lay bleeding and gasping." (History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. lxv., p. 423.)"Soon after this unprovoked massacre, a party of Americans set out for Sandusky, to destroy the Indian towns in that part; but the Delawares, Wyandots, and other Indians opposed them. An engagement ensued, in which some of the white people were killed, and several were taken prisoners. Among the latter were Colonel Crawford and his son-in-law. The colonel was sacrificed to the manes of those Indians who were massacred in the Moravian towns. The other prisoners were put to death with the tomahawk."Throughout the American war, the desolation brought by the Indians on the frontier settlements of the United States, and on the Indians by the Americans, was sufficient to excite compassion in the most obdurate heart."Not only men and warriors, but women and children indiscriminately murdered, while whole settlements were involved in promiscuous desolation. Each was made a scourge to the other; and the unavoidable calamities of war were rendered doubly distressing by the dispersion of families, the breaking up of settlements, and an addition of savage cruelties, to the most extensive devastation of those things which conduce to the comfort of human life."[97]The biographer of Brant and historian of the Border Wars of the American Revolution thinks that Sir Guy Carleton was not opposed to the employment of the Indians in the war with the Congress (Vol. I., pp. 89, 90), and quotes Brant as his authority; but General Haldimand (who himself favoured the employment of the Indians in the war) appears to be the safest interpreter of the views of Sir Guy Carleton, who intended, by the friendly alliance of the Indians with the King, that they should be neutral.[98]Stone's Life of Joseph Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution, Vol. II., Chap. i.[99]Life of Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution.[100]Brant himself was educated at Philadelphia, married and lived quietly on his land in the Mohawk Valley, entertained the missionaries, and assisted in translating portions of the New Testament; but when the revolution commenced he was not allowed to live in peace unless he joined the revolutionary party. He determined to maintain, as he said, the covenant faith of his forefathers to the King of England, and entered upon the "warpath," in which he became so distinguished a hero; in the course of which he perpetrated many deeds of cruelty, but also, as his biographer records, performed many acts of humanity, kindness, and generosity.[101]Stone's Brant and the Border Wars of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Introduction, pp. 13, 14, 15.

[91]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., p. 325."About four weeks after Colonel Zebulon Butler's return, some hundreds of Indians, a large body of Tories, and about fifty regulars, entered Cherry Valley, within the State of New York. They made an unsuccessful attempt on Fort Alden; but they killed and scalped thirty-two of the inhabitants, mostly women and children; and also Colonel Alden and ten soldiers."—Ib., p. 325. Then, on the side of the continentals, "Colonel G. Van Shaick, with fifty-five men, marched from Fort Schuyler to the Onondago settlements, and on the 19th of April, 1779, burnt the whole, consisting of about fifty houses, together with a large quantity of provisions. Horses and stock of every kind were killed. The arms and ammunition of the Indians were either destroyed or brought off, and their settlements were laid waste. Twelve Indians were killed and thirty-four made prisoners. This expedition was performed in less than six days, and without the loss of a man."—Ib., pp. 326, 327.

[91]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., p. 325.

"About four weeks after Colonel Zebulon Butler's return, some hundreds of Indians, a large body of Tories, and about fifty regulars, entered Cherry Valley, within the State of New York. They made an unsuccessful attempt on Fort Alden; but they killed and scalped thirty-two of the inhabitants, mostly women and children; and also Colonel Alden and ten soldiers."—Ib., p. 325. Then, on the side of the continentals, "Colonel G. Van Shaick, with fifty-five men, marched from Fort Schuyler to the Onondago settlements, and on the 19th of April, 1779, burnt the whole, consisting of about fifty houses, together with a large quantity of provisions. Horses and stock of every kind were killed. The arms and ammunition of the Indians were either destroyed or brought off, and their settlements were laid waste. Twelve Indians were killed and thirty-four made prisoners. This expedition was performed in less than six days, and without the loss of a man."—Ib., pp. 326, 327.

[92]Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. III., Chap. xli., pp. 436-439.

[93]Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. x., pp. 230, 231, 232.Mr. Bancroft's tame account of "the great expedition" against the Five Nations, limiting it to a chastisement of the Senecas, can only be accounted for from his contempt of General Sullivan, his desire to pass over as slightly as possible an expedition of destruction so disproportionate to the alleged cause of it, and against a whole rural and agricultural people for the alleged depredations of some of them. There were, as might be expected, marauding parties along the borders on the part of both the Indians and Americans, but the former always seem to have suffered more, and the latter to have excelled the former in their own traditionary mode of savage warfare."Other expeditions," says Mr. Holmes, "besides this decisive one were conducted against the Indians in course of the year. In April, Colonel Van Shaick, with fifty-five men, marched from Fort Schuyler, and burnt the whole Onondago settlements, consisting of about fifty houses, with a large quantity of provisions, killed twelve Indians and made thirty-four prisoners, without the loss of a single man. In the month of August, Colonel Broadhead made a successful expedition against the Mingo, Munsey, and Seneca Indians." (American Annals, Vol. II., p. 302.)

[93]Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. x., pp. 230, 231, 232.

Mr. Bancroft's tame account of "the great expedition" against the Five Nations, limiting it to a chastisement of the Senecas, can only be accounted for from his contempt of General Sullivan, his desire to pass over as slightly as possible an expedition of destruction so disproportionate to the alleged cause of it, and against a whole rural and agricultural people for the alleged depredations of some of them. There were, as might be expected, marauding parties along the borders on the part of both the Indians and Americans, but the former always seem to have suffered more, and the latter to have excelled the former in their own traditionary mode of savage warfare.

"Other expeditions," says Mr. Holmes, "besides this decisive one were conducted against the Indians in course of the year. In April, Colonel Van Shaick, with fifty-five men, marched from Fort Schuyler, and burnt the whole Onondago settlements, consisting of about fifty houses, with a large quantity of provisions, killed twelve Indians and made thirty-four prisoners, without the loss of a single man. In the month of August, Colonel Broadhead made a successful expedition against the Mingo, Munsey, and Seneca Indians." (American Annals, Vol. II., p. 302.)

[94]Mr. Bancroft says that "the British Rangers and men of the Six Nations (who constructed the defensive breastwork at Newton)were in all about800." (History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. x, p. 232.)It was certainly no great feat of military courage and skill for 5,000 men, with the aid of artillery, to defeat and disperse 800 Indians and Tories, without artillery, and then ravage and devastate an undefended country.

It was certainly no great feat of military courage and skill for 5,000 men, with the aid of artillery, to defeat and disperse 800 Indians and Tories, without artillery, and then ravage and devastate an undefended country.

[95]Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxix., pp. 287-289.

[96]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 327-329.We will select from the same historian, though the same facts may be found in other histories of the time, a few examples in addition to those already given of the terrible retribution which the Americans inflicted upon the Indians in retaliation for any incursions which they may have made into the white settlements."The Cherokee Indians made an incursion into Ninety-Six district, in South Carolina, massacred some families and burned several houses. General Pickens, in 1781, collected a party of the militia, and penetrated into their country. This he accomplished in fourteen days, at the head of 394 horsemen. In that short space he burned thirteen towns and villages, killed upwards of forty Indians, and took a number of prisoners. Not one of his party was killed, and only two were wounded. The Americans did not expend over two pounds of ammunition, and yet only three Indians escaped after having been once seen. * *"Towards the end of the war, in 1782, there was a barbarous and unprovoked massacre of some civilized Indians who had settled near the Muskingum. These, under the influence of some pious missionaries of the Moravian persuasion, had been formed into some degree of religious order. They abhorred war, and would take no part therein, giving for a reason that 'the Great Spirit did not make men to destroy men, but to love and assist each other.' From love of peace they advised those of their own colour, who were bent on war, to desist from it. They were also led from humanity to inform the white people of their danger, when they knew their settlements were about to be invaded. This provoked the hostile (American) Indians to such a degree, that they carried these quite away from Muskingum to a bank of the Sandusky Creek. They, finding corn dear and scarce in their new habitations, obtained liberty to come back in the fall of the same year to Muskingum, that they might collect the crops they had planted before their removal."While the white (American) people at and near the Monongahela heard that a number of Indians were at the Moravian towns on the Muskingum, they gave out that their intentions were hostile. Without any further enquiry, 160 of them crossed the Ohio, and put to death these harmless, inoffensive people, though they made no resistance. In conformity to their religious principles, these Moravians submitted to their hard fate, without attempting to destroy their murderers. Upwards of ninety of this pacific race were killed by men who, while they called themselves Christians, were more deserving of the name of savages than those whom they inhumanly murdered." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 330-332.)Mr. Hildreth gives the following account of the proceedings of the eighty or ninety men who murdered the peaceful Indians: "Arrived at the middle Moravian village, they found a party of Christian Indians gathering corn. The Indians at another neighbouring village were sent for, and the whole were placed together in two houses. A council was then held to decide upon their fate. Williamson, their Commander, heretofore accused of too great lenity to the Indians, referred the matter to his men. Only sixteen voted for mercy; all the rest, professing a faith common on the frontier, that 'an Indian has no more soul than a buffalo,' were for murder. They rushed on their prey, scalping-knife in hand, and upwards of ninety Indians, men, women, and children, soon lay bleeding and gasping." (History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. lxv., p. 423.)"Soon after this unprovoked massacre, a party of Americans set out for Sandusky, to destroy the Indian towns in that part; but the Delawares, Wyandots, and other Indians opposed them. An engagement ensued, in which some of the white people were killed, and several were taken prisoners. Among the latter were Colonel Crawford and his son-in-law. The colonel was sacrificed to the manes of those Indians who were massacred in the Moravian towns. The other prisoners were put to death with the tomahawk."Throughout the American war, the desolation brought by the Indians on the frontier settlements of the United States, and on the Indians by the Americans, was sufficient to excite compassion in the most obdurate heart."Not only men and warriors, but women and children indiscriminately murdered, while whole settlements were involved in promiscuous desolation. Each was made a scourge to the other; and the unavoidable calamities of war were rendered doubly distressing by the dispersion of families, the breaking up of settlements, and an addition of savage cruelties, to the most extensive devastation of those things which conduce to the comfort of human life."

[96]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 327-329.

We will select from the same historian, though the same facts may be found in other histories of the time, a few examples in addition to those already given of the terrible retribution which the Americans inflicted upon the Indians in retaliation for any incursions which they may have made into the white settlements.

"The Cherokee Indians made an incursion into Ninety-Six district, in South Carolina, massacred some families and burned several houses. General Pickens, in 1781, collected a party of the militia, and penetrated into their country. This he accomplished in fourteen days, at the head of 394 horsemen. In that short space he burned thirteen towns and villages, killed upwards of forty Indians, and took a number of prisoners. Not one of his party was killed, and only two were wounded. The Americans did not expend over two pounds of ammunition, and yet only three Indians escaped after having been once seen. * *

"Towards the end of the war, in 1782, there was a barbarous and unprovoked massacre of some civilized Indians who had settled near the Muskingum. These, under the influence of some pious missionaries of the Moravian persuasion, had been formed into some degree of religious order. They abhorred war, and would take no part therein, giving for a reason that 'the Great Spirit did not make men to destroy men, but to love and assist each other.' From love of peace they advised those of their own colour, who were bent on war, to desist from it. They were also led from humanity to inform the white people of their danger, when they knew their settlements were about to be invaded. This provoked the hostile (American) Indians to such a degree, that they carried these quite away from Muskingum to a bank of the Sandusky Creek. They, finding corn dear and scarce in their new habitations, obtained liberty to come back in the fall of the same year to Muskingum, that they might collect the crops they had planted before their removal.

"While the white (American) people at and near the Monongahela heard that a number of Indians were at the Moravian towns on the Muskingum, they gave out that their intentions were hostile. Without any further enquiry, 160 of them crossed the Ohio, and put to death these harmless, inoffensive people, though they made no resistance. In conformity to their religious principles, these Moravians submitted to their hard fate, without attempting to destroy their murderers. Upwards of ninety of this pacific race were killed by men who, while they called themselves Christians, were more deserving of the name of savages than those whom they inhumanly murdered." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 330-332.)

Mr. Hildreth gives the following account of the proceedings of the eighty or ninety men who murdered the peaceful Indians: "Arrived at the middle Moravian village, they found a party of Christian Indians gathering corn. The Indians at another neighbouring village were sent for, and the whole were placed together in two houses. A council was then held to decide upon their fate. Williamson, their Commander, heretofore accused of too great lenity to the Indians, referred the matter to his men. Only sixteen voted for mercy; all the rest, professing a faith common on the frontier, that 'an Indian has no more soul than a buffalo,' were for murder. They rushed on their prey, scalping-knife in hand, and upwards of ninety Indians, men, women, and children, soon lay bleeding and gasping." (History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. lxv., p. 423.)

"Soon after this unprovoked massacre, a party of Americans set out for Sandusky, to destroy the Indian towns in that part; but the Delawares, Wyandots, and other Indians opposed them. An engagement ensued, in which some of the white people were killed, and several were taken prisoners. Among the latter were Colonel Crawford and his son-in-law. The colonel was sacrificed to the manes of those Indians who were massacred in the Moravian towns. The other prisoners were put to death with the tomahawk.

"Throughout the American war, the desolation brought by the Indians on the frontier settlements of the United States, and on the Indians by the Americans, was sufficient to excite compassion in the most obdurate heart.

"Not only men and warriors, but women and children indiscriminately murdered, while whole settlements were involved in promiscuous desolation. Each was made a scourge to the other; and the unavoidable calamities of war were rendered doubly distressing by the dispersion of families, the breaking up of settlements, and an addition of savage cruelties, to the most extensive devastation of those things which conduce to the comfort of human life."

[97]The biographer of Brant and historian of the Border Wars of the American Revolution thinks that Sir Guy Carleton was not opposed to the employment of the Indians in the war with the Congress (Vol. I., pp. 89, 90), and quotes Brant as his authority; but General Haldimand (who himself favoured the employment of the Indians in the war) appears to be the safest interpreter of the views of Sir Guy Carleton, who intended, by the friendly alliance of the Indians with the King, that they should be neutral.

[98]Stone's Life of Joseph Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution, Vol. II., Chap. i.

[99]Life of Brant, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution.

[100]Brant himself was educated at Philadelphia, married and lived quietly on his land in the Mohawk Valley, entertained the missionaries, and assisted in translating portions of the New Testament; but when the revolution commenced he was not allowed to live in peace unless he joined the revolutionary party. He determined to maintain, as he said, the covenant faith of his forefathers to the King of England, and entered upon the "warpath," in which he became so distinguished a hero; in the course of which he perpetrated many deeds of cruelty, but also, as his biographer records, performed many acts of humanity, kindness, and generosity.

[101]Stone's Brant and the Border Wars of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Introduction, pp. 13, 14, 15.

Situation and Treatment of the Loyalists During the War.

The condition of the UnitedEmpire Loyalists for several months before, as well as after, the Declaration of Independence, was humiliating to freemen and perilous in the extreme; and that condition became still more pitiable after the alliance of the revolutionists with the French—the hereditary enemies of both England and the colonies. From the beginning the Loyalists were deprived of the freedom of the press, freedom of assemblage, and under an espionage universal, sleepless, malignant—subjecting the Loyalists to every species of insult, to arrest and imprisonment at any moment, and to the seizure and confiscation of their property.

Before the Declaration of Independence, both parties were confessedly British subjects, professing allegiance to the same sovereign and constitution of government, both professing and avowing their adherence to the rights of British subjects; but differing from each other as to the extent of those rights in contradistinction to the constitutional rights of the Crown and those of the people—as in the case of party discussions of all constitutional questions, whether in the colonies or mother country for centuries past. Both parties had their advocates in the British Parliament; and while the prerogative advocates supported the corrupt Ministry of the day—or the King's party, as it was called—the Opposition in Parliament supported the petitions and remonstrances of those colonists who claimed a more popular colonial government; but all the advocates of the constitutional rights of the colonists, in both Houses of Parliament, disclaimed, on the part of those whom they represented, the least idea of independence or separation from England. The Declaration of Independence essentially changed the relations of parties, both in Great Britain and America. The party of independence—getting, after months of manipulation by its leaders, first a majority of one in the Congress, and afterwards increasing that majority by various means—repudiated their former professed principles of connection with England; broke faith with the great men and parties in England, both in and out of Parliament, who had vindicated their rights and professions for more than ten years; broke faith also with their numerous fellow-subjects in America who adhered to the old faith, to the old flag, and connection with England, and who were declared by resolutions of Conventions, from Congress, provinces, counties, to townships and towns, enemies of their country, rebels and traitors, and treated as such.[102]Even before the Declaration of Independence, some of these popular meetings, called Conventions, assumed the highest functions of legislation and government, and dealt at pleasure with the rights, liberties, property, and even lives of their Tory fellow citizens. There had been violent words, terms of mutual reproach, as in all cases of hot political contests; but it was for the advocates of independent liberty to deny to the adherents of the old faith all liberty of speech or of opinion, except under penalties of imprisonment or banishment, with confiscation of property. For a large portion of the community[103]to be thus stript of their civil rights by resolutions of a Convention, and reduced to the position of proscribed aliens or slaves, must have been galling to Loyalists beyond expression,and well calculated to prompt them to outbreaks of passion, and retaliations of resentment and revenge, each such act followed by a corresponding act from the opposite party.[104]

It might be supposed that forbearance and respect would have been shown to those who remained "steadfast and immovable" in the traditional faith of British monarchy and British connection, notwithstanding a corrupt and arbitrary party was in power for the time being; but the very reverse of this was the case on the part of those who professed, as one cardinal article of their political creed, that "all men are born free and equal," and therefore that every man had an equal right to his opinions, and an equal right to the expression of them; but all this was reversed in the treatment of the Loyalists. Mr. Hildreth well describes the position and treatment of the Loyalists, both before and after the Declaration of Independence, in the following words:

"In the position of that considerable class of persons who had remained in doubt, the Declaration of Independence and the assumption of State government made a decided change. It was now necessary to choose one side or the other.

"Very serious, too, was the change in the legal position of the class known as Tories, in many of the States a large minority, and in all respectable for wealth and social position. Of those thus stigmatized, some were inclined to favour the utmost claims of the mother country;but the greater part, though determined to adhere to the British connection, yet deprecated the policy which had brought on so fatal a quarrel.This loyal minority, especially its more conspicuous members, as the warmth of political feeling increased, had been exposed to the violence of mobs, and to all sorts of personal indignities, in which private malice or a wanton and insolent spirit of mischief had been too often gratified under the disguise of patriotism. The barbarous and disgraceful practice of tarring and feathering and carting Tories, placing them in a cart and carrying them about as a sort of spectacle, had become in some places a favourite amusement. To restrain these outrages, Congress had specially committed the oversight of Tories and suspected persons to the regularly appointed Committees of Inspection and Observation for the several counties and districts. But even these Committees were not always very judicious or discriminating in the exercise of despotic powers implied in that delicate trust.

"By the recent political changes, Tories and suspected persons became exposed to dangers from the law as well as from mobs. Having boldly seized the reins of government, the new State authorities claimed the allegiance of all residents within their limits, and under the lead and recommendation of Congress, those who refused to acknowledge their authority, or who adhered to their enemies, were exposed to severe penalties, confiscation of property, imprisonment, banishment, and finally death."[105]

It does not appear that these lawless outrages upon "Tories" were ever checked or discountenanced, or their authors ever even reproved by the so-called authorities, but were actively or tacitly encouraged; so that before and during the very first months of Independence, the Loyalists were subject to the penalties of the mobs on one side and to the more cruel penalties of new-made law by a newly self-created authority on the other side. Perhaps no one did as much to promote this cruel policy against the Loyalists as Mr. John Adams, who was the ruling spirit in all the proceedings of Boston for years, the advocate of the Declaration of Independence, and the chiefmember of the Secret Committee of Congress for years, and was at length appointed Ambassador from the American Congress to Holland, whence he wrote a letter to Thomas Cushing, then Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts, but which was intercepted on board of the prize brigantineCabot, and carried to St. Christopher's, in the West Indies. This letter was published in the Annual Register for 1781, pp. 259-261. It is dated "Amsterdam, December 15th, 1780," more than four years after the Declaration of Independence, and fully indicates the source of all those cruel acts against the Loyalists at the commencement and during the early years of the American civil war. Mr. Adams says:

"It is true, I believe, what you suggest, that Lord North showed a disposition to give up the contest, but was diverted from it not unlikely by the representation of the Americans in London, who, in connection with their coadjutors in America, have been thorns to us indeed on both sides of the water; but I think their career might have been stopt on your side if the executive officers had not been too timid in a point which I so strenuously recommended at the first—namely, to fine, imprison, and hang all inimical to the cause, without favour or affection. I foresaw the evil that would arise from that quarter, and wished to have timely stopt it. I would have hanged my own brother had he taken a part with our enemy in the contest."

Such was the "strenuously recommended" wholesale hanging policy of Mr. John Adams for the extermination of the "Tories"—a curious illustration of his professed doctrine, that "all men are born free and equal," and which largely accounts for the treatment of Loyalists during the war, and for the exasperated feelings which existed between them and their persecutors and oppressors of the Independence party. One of the first manifestations of this relentless feeling against the Loyalists occurred in Mr. Adams' native city of Boston, on its evacuation by General Howe, who, as Lord Mahon says, "had taken with him, at their own urgent request, above a thousand of the inhabitants of Boston, who had espoused the cause of the parent State, and who dreaded on that account the vengeance of their countrymen. Before they had embarked, they had, as Washington informs his brother, publicly declared that 'if they thought the most abject submission would procure them peace, theynever would have stirred.'"[106](Letter to John Augustine Washington, March 13th, 1776, as printed in the American Archives.)

"Indeed, throughout this contest, and amidst all those qualities displayed by the Americans, many of those qualities being entitled to high respect and commendation, there was none certainly less amiable than their merciless rancour against those among them who adhered to the royal side. In reference to those, a ferocious saying came to be current in America, that though we are commanded to forgive our enemies, we are nowhere commanded to forgive our friends. In reference to them, true Jetburgh justice was more than once administered—first the punishment, then the accusation, and last of all the evidence."[107]

The Convention of the State of New York (1776) resolved that "any person being an adherent to the King of Great Britain should be guilty of treason and suffer death."[108]

The Loyalists experienced similar treatment in other provinces.

"Previous to their evacuation of Philadelphia, the Congresshad ordered some of the principal Quakers and other gentlemen of the first consideration in that place, above twenty in number, to be taken into custody, as strongly attached to the royal cause, and known enemies to the ruling powers. These gentlemen had repeatedly refused to give any written or verbal acknowledgment of allegiance or submission to the American Government, or promise of holding no correspondence with its enemies. Notwithstanding the evident danger their persons were in, they had even the resolution to refuse confining themselves to their respective dwellings. The spirit of these gentlemen was unconquerable to the last, as they still persisted, in defiance of threats, and in spite of all solicitations and entreaty, immovable in their principles and in their determination to reject the test that was proposed to them. They were sent prisoners to Stanton, in Virginia, as soon as it was apprehended that the British troops would take possession of Philadelphia."[109]

After the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, at Yorktown, the defenceless Loyalists were the objects of vengeance as they went further north. The army of Lord Cornwallis received civil treatment from Washington's army,[110]and great kindness from the French officers and soldiers. Lord Mahon observes:

"The followers of the English army, left defenceless at Yorktown, were exposed to much ill-treatment on the part of the native soldiers, thirsting, it was said, for vengeance. AbbéRobin[111]saw an English lady, a colonel's wife, come in tears to implore for herself and for her children the protection of French generosity against American outrage. On the other hand, we find the English officers and soldiers, the actual prisoners of war, bear willing testimony to the kindness they received. Thus speaks Lord Cornwallis in his letter to Sir Henry Clinton: 'The treatment in general that we have received from the enemy since our surrender has been perfectly good and proper. But the kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers in particular, their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offer of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe, and will, I hope, make an impression on the breast of every English officer, whenever the fortune of war should put any of them into our power.'" (Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxiv., pp. 181, 182.)

The Acts of Legislative Bodies for the Punishment of the Adherents to the Crown were numerous.

"InRhode Island, death andconfiscationof estate were the penalties by law for any person who communicated withthe Ministryor their agents,orwho afforded supplies to the forces,orpiloted the armed ships of the King. Besides these general statutes, several Acts were passed in that State to confiscate and sequester the property of certain persons who were designated by name.

"InConnecticut, the offences of supplying the royal armyor navy, of giving them information, of enlisting or procuring others to enlist in them, and of piloting or assisting naval vessels, were punished more mildly, and involved only the loss of estate and personal liberty for a term not exceeding three years. Tospeakorwriteor act against the doings of Congress or of the Assembly of Connecticut, was punishable bydisqualification for office, imprisonment, and the disarming of the offender. Here, too, was a law for seizing and confiscating the estates of those who sought royal protection, and absented themselves from their homes or the country.

"InMassachusetts, a personsuspectedof enmity to the Whig cause could bearrestedunder a magistrate's warrant and banished, unless he would swear fealty to the friends of liberty; and the select men of towns could prefer charges of political treachery in town meetings, and the individual accused, if convicted by a jury, could be sent into the enemy's jurisdiction (banished). Massachusetts also designated by name, and generally by occupation and residence, 380 of her people, of whom seventeen had been inhabitants of Maine, who had fled from their homes, and denounced against any one of them who should return, apprehension, imprisonment, and transportation to a place possessed by the British; and for a second voluntary return, without leave,deathwithout the benefit of clergy. By another law, the property of twenty-nine persons who were denominated 'notorious conspirators,' was confiscated—two had been governors, one lieutenant-governor, one treasurer, one attorney-general, one chief justice, and four commissioners of customs.

"New Hampshirepassed Acts similar to these, under which seventy-six of her former citizens were prohibited from coming within her borders, and the estates of twenty-eight were declared to be forfeited.

"Virginiapassed a resolution to the effect that persons of a given description should be deemed and treated as aliens, and that their property should be sold, and the proceeds go into the public treasury for future disposal; and also a law prohibiting the migration of certain persons to that commonwealth, and providing penalties for the violation of its provisions.

"InNew York, the County Committees were authorized to apprehend and decide upon the guilt of such inhabitants asweresupposedto hold correspondence with the enemy, or had committed some other specified act; and they might punish those whom they adjudged to be guilty with imprisonment for three months, or banishment. There, too, persons opposed to liberty and independence were prohibited from practising law in the Courts; and the effects of fifty-nine persons, of whom three were women, and their rights of remainder and reversion, were to pass by confiscation from them to the people. So, also, a parent whose sons went off and adhered to the enemy was subjected to a tax of ninepence on the pound of the parents' estate for each and every such son; and until a revision of the law, Whigs were as liable to this tax as others.

"InNew Jersey, one Act was passed to punish traitors and disaffected persons; another, for taking charge of and leasing the real estates, and for forfeiting the personal estates of certain fugitives and offenders; and a third for forfeiting to, and vesting in the State, the real property of the persons designated in the second statute; and a fourth, supplemental to the Act first mentioned.

"InPennsylvania, sixty-two persons, who were designated by name, were required by the Executive Council to surrender themselves to some Judge of a Court, or Justice of the Peace, within a specified time, and abide trial fortreason, or in default of appearance to stand attainted; and by an Act of a subsequent time, the estates of thirty-six other persons, who were also designated by name, and who had been previously attainted of treason, were declared to be confiscated.

"The Act ofDelawareprovided that the property, both real and personal, of certain persons who were named, and who were forty-six in number, should be forfeited to the State, 'subject, nevertheless, to the payment of the said offenders' just debts,' unless, as in Pennsylvania, they gave themselves up to trial forthe crime of treason in adhering to the royal cause.

"Marylandseized, confiscated, and appropriated all property of persons in allegiance to the British Crown, and appointed Commissioners to carry out the terms of three statutes which were passed to effect these purposes.

"InNorth Carolina, the Confiscation Act embraced sixty-five specified individuals, and four mercantile firms, and by itsterms not only included the 'lands' of these persons and commercial houses, but their 'negroes and other personal property.'

"The law ofGeorgia, which was enacted very near the close of the struggle, declared certain persons to have been guilty of treason against that State, and their estates to be forfeited for their offences."[112]

"South Carolinasurpassedall the other members of the confederacy, Massachusetts excepted. The Loyalists of the State, whose rights, persons, and property were affected by legislation, were divided into four classes. The persons who had offended the least, who were forty-five in number, wereallowed to retain their estates, but were amerced twelve per cent. of their value. Soon after the fall of Charleston, and when disaffection to the Whig cause was so general, 210 persons, who styled themselves to be 'principal inhabitants' of the city, signed an address to Sir Henry Clinton, in which they state that they have every inducement to return to their allegiance, and ardently hope to be re-admitted to the character and condition of British subjects. These 'addressers' formed another class. Of these 210, sixty-three were banished and lost their property by forfeiture, either for this offence or the graver one of affixing their names to a petition to the royal general, to be armed on the royal side. Another class, composed of the still larger number of eighty persons, werealso banished and divested of their estates, for the crime of holding civil or military commissions under the Crown, after the conquest of South Carolina. And the same penalties were inflicted upon thirteen others, who, on the success of Lord Cornwallis at Camden, presented his lordship with congratulations. Still fourteen others werebanished and deprived of their estatesbecause they wereobnoxious. Thus, then, the 'addressers,' 'petitioners,' 'congratulators,' and 'obnoxious Loyalists,' who were proscribed, and who suffered the loss of their property (in South Carolina), were 170 in number; and if to these we add the forty-five who were fined twelve pounds in the hundred of the value of their estates, the aggregate will be 215.

"Much of the legislation of the several States appears tohave proceeded from the recommendations made from time to timeby Congress, and that body passed several acts and resolutions of its own. Thus they subjected tomartial lawand todeathall who should furnish provisions and certain other articles to the King's troops in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware; and they resolved that all Loyalists taken in arms should be sent to the States to which they belonged, there to bedealt with as traitors" (not as prisoners of war, as were Americans taken in arms against the British).[113]

REMARKS ON THE CONFISCATION ACTS ABOVE CITED.

The Draconian Code or the Spanish Inquisition can hardly be said to exceed in severity and intolerance, the acts of the several State Legislatures and Committees above quoted, in which mere opinions are declared to be treason, as also the refusal to renounce a solemn oath of allegiance. The very place of residence, the non-presenting one's self to be tried as a traitor, the meresuspicionof holding Loyalist opinions, involved the loss of liberty and property. Scores of persons were made criminals, not after trial by a verdict of a regularly empanelled jury, but by name, in acts or resolutions of Legislatures, and sometimes of Committees. No modern civilized country has presented such a spectacle of the wholesale disposal, by name, of the rights, liberties and properties, and even lives of citizens, by inquisition and various bodies, as was here presented against the Loyalists, guilty of no crime against their neighbours except holding to the opinions of their forefathers, and the former opinions of their present persecutors, who had usurped the power to rob, banish, and destroy them—who embodied in themselves, at one and the same time, the functions of law makers, law judges, and law executioners, and the receivers and disposers, or, as was the case, the possessors of the property which they confiscated against the Loyalists.

Is it surprising, then, that under such a system of oppression and robbery, Loyalists should be prompted to deeds of heroism, and sometimes of desperation and cruelty, to avenge themselves for the wrongs inflicted upon them, and to recover the liberties and properties of which they had thus been deprived, renderingthemselves and their families homeless, and reducing them to poverty and distress? No one can justify many deeds of the Loyalists; but who could be surprised had they been more desperate than they were? And this the more so as they were, probably, superior in wealth and nearly equal in numbers to their oppressors, who had suddenly seized upon all military sources of power, disarmed the Loyalists, and erected tribunals for their ruin.[114]American writers often speak of the havoc committed by the "Tories," but the acts of Legislatures and Committees above quoted furnish ample causes and provocation for retaliation, and the most desperate enterprises and efforts to recover lawful rights and hard-earned property. Where these Confiscating Acts had been most sweeping and severe, as in the case of South Carolina, and the two parties nearly equal, this internecine war against life and property was the most relentless.[115]

It is as easy as it is unfair for American writers to narrate andmagnify the murderous acts of the "Tories," and omit those perpetrated by the "Whigs," as well as the cruel laws against the liberties, property, and lives of the "Tories," which gave rise to these barbarous acts.

FOOTNOTES:[102]"Committees exercised legislative, executive, and judicial powers. It is not to be doubted that, in many instances, these were improperly used, and that private resentments were often covered under the specious veil of patriotism. The sufferers, in passing over to the Royalists, carried with them a keen remembrance of the vengeance of Committees, and when opportunity presented were tempted to retaliate." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxvi., pp. 467, 468.)[103]"Until the Declaration of Independence they were by far the largest party, who not only expected but prayed for a reconciliation. England was their home, and by that affectionate name was always spoken of; all the wrongs which were heaped upon the children could not make them forget their home, or entirely alienate them from their parent. The ligaments that connect nations are never less powerful, though less tender, than those which unite individuals, families, and clans. Consanguinity, affinity, alliance, operate alike on each." (Allen's History of the American War.)"The disaffected, or rather the Loyalists, were a formidable party in the Middle States. They might be forgiven—many of them acted from principle, from a conscientious regard to their duty, from affection to their 'Sovereign,' and however mistaken they may have been, they deserve no censure. It is the infirmity of men's nature to err, and the majority cannot complain if the minority insist on the same privilege for which the predominant party are contending—the liberty of judging for themselves."—Ib., Vol. I., p. 483.[104]Even in South Carolina. Mr. Hildreth remarks:"Not, however, by armies alone were hostilities carried on. All the scattered settlements bristled in hostile array. Whigs and Tories pursued each other with little less than savage fury. Small parties, everywhere under arms, some on one side, some on the other, with very little reference to greater operations, were desperately bent on plunder and blood." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 329.)[105]Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap, xxxiii., pp. 137, 138.[106]Having thus recovered their capital (Boston), one of the first acts of government exercised by the Provincial Assembly was to order the effects and the estates of those who fled with the British troops to Halifax to be publicly disposed of, and their produce applied to the use of the State. Such adherents to Britain as had risked to remain behind, were treated with great severity. They were prosecuted as enemies and betrayers of their country, and their estates were confiscated accordingly. (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. II., Chap. xix., p. 159.)[107]Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. liii., pp. 127, 128."The American Loyalists, in arms on the side of England, had grievous cause throughout the war to complain of the merciless treatment of such among them as fell into their countrymen's hands."—Ib., Vol. VII., Chap. lxvi., p. 250."The Legislature of North Carolina passed a law (1780) to put a stop to the robbery of poor people under the pretence that they were Tories—a practice carried on even to the plundering of their clothes and household furniture." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 329.)"In New York, in 1776, a rage for plundering, under pretence of taking Tory property, infected many of the common soldiery, and even some of the officers." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xi., p. 154.)[108]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xi.[109]Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. II., Chap. xxvi., pp. 370, 371.[110]In connection with these transactions, we have an illustration of the uniform and generous treatment of Loyalists by General Washington, although he once gave expression to ill-feeling towards them at Boston in the spring of 1775; for says Lord Mahon:"Cornwallis, on his part, was honourably anxious to protect from harm the native Loyalists within his lines; and he proposed, as the tenth Article, that no such men were to be punished on account of having joined the British army. Washington wrote in reply: 'This cannot be assented to, being altogether of civil resort.' Means were found, however, with Washington's connivance, to obtain the same object in another form. It was stipulated that, immediately after the capitulation, theBonettasloop-of-war was to sail for New York, unsearched, with despatches from Lord Cornwallis to Sir Henry Clinton, and with as many soldiers on board as he should think fit to send; provided only that the vessel was returned, and that the soldiers were accounted for as prisoners in a future exchange. By this expedient was the British chief enabled to secure a safe conduct for his American adherents." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxiv., p. 179.)[111]"The abbé was struck at seeing, from several indications, how much keener was at that time the animosity between the English and Americans than between the English and French. Thus the English officers, when they laid down their arms and were passing along the enemy's lines, courteously saluted every French officer, even of the 'lowest rank,' a compliment which they withheld from every American man of the highest." (Voyage en Amerique, par l'Abbé Robin, p. 141, ed. 1782; quoted in Lord Mahon's History, Vol. VI., Chap. lxiv., p. 181.)[112]Noteby the Author.—The above statement of the confiscating law of Georgia gives a very inadequate idea of that law. Savannah was taken, and General Lincoln and his army were driven out of Georgia by Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell, in 1778, who treated all classes with such kindness and generosity that the Legislature and Government, as previously existed, was restored and remained until 1782, when Savannah was evacuated by the British. Just at the juncture of Colonel Campbell's conquest of Georgia, the Legislature of that State was passing a Confiscation Act against "Tories" and preparing to carry it into effect. During the latter part of the nearly four years of British occupation, the Congress party elected a Governor and organized their Legislature, meeting at Augusta. Two months before the evacuation of Savannah by the British, the Legislature of the Congress party passed the Confiscation Act referred to in the text. We find a copy of this act in a pamphlet published in London in 1783, entitledThe Particular Case of the Georgia Loyalists. This Act may serve as a specimen of Confiscation Acts passed in other States. We give it entire, remarking that it curiously assumes in the preamble that there had been no break in the Government of the State from 1778 to 1782, though the English had ruled the State during the whole of that period. The Act is as follows:"Whereas on the 1st day of March, which was in the year of our Lord 1778, an Act was passed for attainting certain persons therein mentioned of treason, and confiscating their estates for the use and benefit of this State, which said Act has not yet been carried into full execution: And whereas it is necessary that the names of the said persons so attainted by the same law should be inserted in a law, with the names of various other persons who have since the aforesaid time been guilty of treason against this State, and the authority of the same, by traitorously adhering to the King of Great Britain, and by aiding, assisting, abetting, and comforting the generals and other officers, civil and military, of the said King, to enforce his authority in and over this State, and the good people of the same: And whereas theaforesaid treason, and other atrocious crimes, justly merit forfeiture of protection and property:"Be it enacted, by the representatives and freemen of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, that all and each of the following persons, viz. (here follow the names of 286 persons, late inhabitants of Georgia), be and they are hereby declared to be banished from this State for ever; and if any of the aforesaid shall remain in this State sixty days after the passing of this Act, or shall return to this State, the Governor or Commander-in-Chief for the time being is hereby authorised and required to cause such persons so remaining in orreturningto this State to be apprehended and committed to jail, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until a convenient opportunity shall offer for transporting the said persons beyond the seas to some part of the British King's dominions, which the Governor or Commander-in-Chief for the time being is hereby required to do; and if any of the said persons shall return to this State after such transportation, then and in such case he or they shall be adjudged and hereby declared tobe guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction of their having so returned as aforesaid,suffer deathwithout the benefit of clergy."And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular the estates, real and personal, of each and every one of the aforesaid persons, which they held, possessed or were entitled to, in law or equity, on the 19th of April, 1775, or which they have held since, or do hold in possession, or others hold in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, or which they may have, hold, or be possessed of, in right of others, together with all debts, dues, and demands that are or may be owing to the aforesaid persons, or either of them,be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State; and the monies arising from the sales which take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this Act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct."And whereas divers others persons, citizens of this State, and owing allegiance thereto (whose names are not herein recited), did, in violation of said allegiance, traitorously assist, abet, and participate in the aforesaid treasonable practices: Be it therefore enacted, by the authority of the aforesaid, that all and every of the person or persons under this description shall, on full proof and conviction of the same in a court of law, be liable and subjected to all the like pains, penalties, and forfeitures inflicted by this Act on those offenders whose names are particularly mentioned therein."And be it further enacted, that all debts, dues, or demands due or owing to merchants and others residing in Great Britain, be and they are hereby sequestered, and the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or a majority of them, are hereby empowered to recover, receive, and deposit the same in the Treasury of this State, in the same manner and under the same regulations as debts confiscated, there to remain for the use of this State until otherwise appropriated by this or any other House of Assembly."And whereas there are various persons, subjects of the King of Great Britain, possessed of or entitled to estates, real and personal, which justice and sound policy require should be applied to the benefit of this State: Be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular the estates, real and personal, belonging to persons being British subjects, of whatever kind or nature, of which they may be possessed, or others in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, and also all debts, dues, or demands owing or accruing to them, be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State; and the monies arising from the sale which shall take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this Act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct."And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the State will and do guarantee and defend the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or a majority of them, in all their proceedings for carrying the powers and authorities given them by the same into full effect; and will also warrant and for ever defend all and every sale or sales which the said Commissioners, or a majority of them, shall make to any purchaser or purchasers of any part or parts of the real and personal estates confiscated by this Act."Augusta, State of Georgia, 4th May, 1782."[113]Historical Introduction to Col. Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, pp. 77-81.[114]In the historical essay above quoted, the author says: "The examination now completed of the political condition of the colonies, of the state of parties, and of the divisions in particular classes in society, and avocations in life, leads to the conclusion that the number of our countrymen who wished to continue their connection with the mother country was very large. In nearly every Loyalist letter or other paper which I have examined, and in which the subject is mentioned, it is either assumed or stated in terms that theLOYALwerethe majority; and this opinion, I am satisfied, was very generally entertained by those who professed to have a knowledge of public sentiment. That the adherents of the Crown were mistaken, is certain. But yet in the Carolinas, and Georgia, and possibly in Pennsylvania the two parties differed but little in point of strength, while in New York the Whigs were far weaker than their opponents." (Historical Introduction to Col. Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, p. 65.)[115]In the historical essay above quoted we have the following words:"What was the nature of the conflict between the two parties in South Carolina? Did the Whigs and their opponents meet in open and fair fight, and give and take the courtesies and observe the rules of civilized warfare? Alas, no! They murdered one another. I wish it were possible to use a milder word; but murder is the only one that can be employed to express the truth. Of this, however, the reader shall judge. I shall refrain from a statement of my own, and rely on the testimony of others."Gen. Greene thus spoke of the hand-to-hand strifes, which I stigmatize as murderous. 'The animosity,' said he, 'between the Whigs and Tories renders their situation truly deplorable. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither 'Whig' nor 'Tory' can live." (Historical Introduction to Colonel Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, p. 33.)

[102]"Committees exercised legislative, executive, and judicial powers. It is not to be doubted that, in many instances, these were improperly used, and that private resentments were often covered under the specious veil of patriotism. The sufferers, in passing over to the Royalists, carried with them a keen remembrance of the vengeance of Committees, and when opportunity presented were tempted to retaliate." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxvi., pp. 467, 468.)

[103]"Until the Declaration of Independence they were by far the largest party, who not only expected but prayed for a reconciliation. England was their home, and by that affectionate name was always spoken of; all the wrongs which were heaped upon the children could not make them forget their home, or entirely alienate them from their parent. The ligaments that connect nations are never less powerful, though less tender, than those which unite individuals, families, and clans. Consanguinity, affinity, alliance, operate alike on each." (Allen's History of the American War.)"The disaffected, or rather the Loyalists, were a formidable party in the Middle States. They might be forgiven—many of them acted from principle, from a conscientious regard to their duty, from affection to their 'Sovereign,' and however mistaken they may have been, they deserve no censure. It is the infirmity of men's nature to err, and the majority cannot complain if the minority insist on the same privilege for which the predominant party are contending—the liberty of judging for themselves."—Ib., Vol. I., p. 483.

"The disaffected, or rather the Loyalists, were a formidable party in the Middle States. They might be forgiven—many of them acted from principle, from a conscientious regard to their duty, from affection to their 'Sovereign,' and however mistaken they may have been, they deserve no censure. It is the infirmity of men's nature to err, and the majority cannot complain if the minority insist on the same privilege for which the predominant party are contending—the liberty of judging for themselves."—Ib., Vol. I., p. 483.

[104]Even in South Carolina. Mr. Hildreth remarks:"Not, however, by armies alone were hostilities carried on. All the scattered settlements bristled in hostile array. Whigs and Tories pursued each other with little less than savage fury. Small parties, everywhere under arms, some on one side, some on the other, with very little reference to greater operations, were desperately bent on plunder and blood." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 329.)

[104]Even in South Carolina. Mr. Hildreth remarks:

"Not, however, by armies alone were hostilities carried on. All the scattered settlements bristled in hostile array. Whigs and Tories pursued each other with little less than savage fury. Small parties, everywhere under arms, some on one side, some on the other, with very little reference to greater operations, were desperately bent on plunder and blood." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 329.)

[105]Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap, xxxiii., pp. 137, 138.

[106]Having thus recovered their capital (Boston), one of the first acts of government exercised by the Provincial Assembly was to order the effects and the estates of those who fled with the British troops to Halifax to be publicly disposed of, and their produce applied to the use of the State. Such adherents to Britain as had risked to remain behind, were treated with great severity. They were prosecuted as enemies and betrayers of their country, and their estates were confiscated accordingly. (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. II., Chap. xix., p. 159.)

[107]Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. liii., pp. 127, 128."The American Loyalists, in arms on the side of England, had grievous cause throughout the war to complain of the merciless treatment of such among them as fell into their countrymen's hands."—Ib., Vol. VII., Chap. lxvi., p. 250."The Legislature of North Carolina passed a law (1780) to put a stop to the robbery of poor people under the pretence that they were Tories—a practice carried on even to the plundering of their clothes and household furniture." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 329.)"In New York, in 1776, a rage for plundering, under pretence of taking Tory property, infected many of the common soldiery, and even some of the officers." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xi., p. 154.)

[107]Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. liii., pp. 127, 128.

"The American Loyalists, in arms on the side of England, had grievous cause throughout the war to complain of the merciless treatment of such among them as fell into their countrymen's hands."—Ib., Vol. VII., Chap. lxvi., p. 250.

"The Legislature of North Carolina passed a law (1780) to put a stop to the robbery of poor people under the pretence that they were Tories—a practice carried on even to the plundering of their clothes and household furniture." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xli., p. 329.)

"In New York, in 1776, a rage for plundering, under pretence of taking Tory property, infected many of the common soldiery, and even some of the officers." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xi., p. 154.)

[108]Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xi.

[109]Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. II., Chap. xxvi., pp. 370, 371.

[110]In connection with these transactions, we have an illustration of the uniform and generous treatment of Loyalists by General Washington, although he once gave expression to ill-feeling towards them at Boston in the spring of 1775; for says Lord Mahon:"Cornwallis, on his part, was honourably anxious to protect from harm the native Loyalists within his lines; and he proposed, as the tenth Article, that no such men were to be punished on account of having joined the British army. Washington wrote in reply: 'This cannot be assented to, being altogether of civil resort.' Means were found, however, with Washington's connivance, to obtain the same object in another form. It was stipulated that, immediately after the capitulation, theBonettasloop-of-war was to sail for New York, unsearched, with despatches from Lord Cornwallis to Sir Henry Clinton, and with as many soldiers on board as he should think fit to send; provided only that the vessel was returned, and that the soldiers were accounted for as prisoners in a future exchange. By this expedient was the British chief enabled to secure a safe conduct for his American adherents." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxiv., p. 179.)

"Cornwallis, on his part, was honourably anxious to protect from harm the native Loyalists within his lines; and he proposed, as the tenth Article, that no such men were to be punished on account of having joined the British army. Washington wrote in reply: 'This cannot be assented to, being altogether of civil resort.' Means were found, however, with Washington's connivance, to obtain the same object in another form. It was stipulated that, immediately after the capitulation, theBonettasloop-of-war was to sail for New York, unsearched, with despatches from Lord Cornwallis to Sir Henry Clinton, and with as many soldiers on board as he should think fit to send; provided only that the vessel was returned, and that the soldiers were accounted for as prisoners in a future exchange. By this expedient was the British chief enabled to secure a safe conduct for his American adherents." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lxiv., p. 179.)

[111]"The abbé was struck at seeing, from several indications, how much keener was at that time the animosity between the English and Americans than between the English and French. Thus the English officers, when they laid down their arms and were passing along the enemy's lines, courteously saluted every French officer, even of the 'lowest rank,' a compliment which they withheld from every American man of the highest." (Voyage en Amerique, par l'Abbé Robin, p. 141, ed. 1782; quoted in Lord Mahon's History, Vol. VI., Chap. lxiv., p. 181.)

[112]Noteby the Author.—The above statement of the confiscating law of Georgia gives a very inadequate idea of that law. Savannah was taken, and General Lincoln and his army were driven out of Georgia by Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell, in 1778, who treated all classes with such kindness and generosity that the Legislature and Government, as previously existed, was restored and remained until 1782, when Savannah was evacuated by the British. Just at the juncture of Colonel Campbell's conquest of Georgia, the Legislature of that State was passing a Confiscation Act against "Tories" and preparing to carry it into effect. During the latter part of the nearly four years of British occupation, the Congress party elected a Governor and organized their Legislature, meeting at Augusta. Two months before the evacuation of Savannah by the British, the Legislature of the Congress party passed the Confiscation Act referred to in the text. We find a copy of this act in a pamphlet published in London in 1783, entitledThe Particular Case of the Georgia Loyalists. This Act may serve as a specimen of Confiscation Acts passed in other States. We give it entire, remarking that it curiously assumes in the preamble that there had been no break in the Government of the State from 1778 to 1782, though the English had ruled the State during the whole of that period. The Act is as follows:"Whereas on the 1st day of March, which was in the year of our Lord 1778, an Act was passed for attainting certain persons therein mentioned of treason, and confiscating their estates for the use and benefit of this State, which said Act has not yet been carried into full execution: And whereas it is necessary that the names of the said persons so attainted by the same law should be inserted in a law, with the names of various other persons who have since the aforesaid time been guilty of treason against this State, and the authority of the same, by traitorously adhering to the King of Great Britain, and by aiding, assisting, abetting, and comforting the generals and other officers, civil and military, of the said King, to enforce his authority in and over this State, and the good people of the same: And whereas theaforesaid treason, and other atrocious crimes, justly merit forfeiture of protection and property:"Be it enacted, by the representatives and freemen of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, that all and each of the following persons, viz. (here follow the names of 286 persons, late inhabitants of Georgia), be and they are hereby declared to be banished from this State for ever; and if any of the aforesaid shall remain in this State sixty days after the passing of this Act, or shall return to this State, the Governor or Commander-in-Chief for the time being is hereby authorised and required to cause such persons so remaining in orreturningto this State to be apprehended and committed to jail, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until a convenient opportunity shall offer for transporting the said persons beyond the seas to some part of the British King's dominions, which the Governor or Commander-in-Chief for the time being is hereby required to do; and if any of the said persons shall return to this State after such transportation, then and in such case he or they shall be adjudged and hereby declared tobe guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction of their having so returned as aforesaid,suffer deathwithout the benefit of clergy."And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular the estates, real and personal, of each and every one of the aforesaid persons, which they held, possessed or were entitled to, in law or equity, on the 19th of April, 1775, or which they have held since, or do hold in possession, or others hold in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, or which they may have, hold, or be possessed of, in right of others, together with all debts, dues, and demands that are or may be owing to the aforesaid persons, or either of them,be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State; and the monies arising from the sales which take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this Act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct."And whereas divers others persons, citizens of this State, and owing allegiance thereto (whose names are not herein recited), did, in violation of said allegiance, traitorously assist, abet, and participate in the aforesaid treasonable practices: Be it therefore enacted, by the authority of the aforesaid, that all and every of the person or persons under this description shall, on full proof and conviction of the same in a court of law, be liable and subjected to all the like pains, penalties, and forfeitures inflicted by this Act on those offenders whose names are particularly mentioned therein."And be it further enacted, that all debts, dues, or demands due or owing to merchants and others residing in Great Britain, be and they are hereby sequestered, and the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or a majority of them, are hereby empowered to recover, receive, and deposit the same in the Treasury of this State, in the same manner and under the same regulations as debts confiscated, there to remain for the use of this State until otherwise appropriated by this or any other House of Assembly."And whereas there are various persons, subjects of the King of Great Britain, possessed of or entitled to estates, real and personal, which justice and sound policy require should be applied to the benefit of this State: Be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular the estates, real and personal, belonging to persons being British subjects, of whatever kind or nature, of which they may be possessed, or others in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, and also all debts, dues, or demands owing or accruing to them, be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State; and the monies arising from the sale which shall take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this Act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct."And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the State will and do guarantee and defend the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or a majority of them, in all their proceedings for carrying the powers and authorities given them by the same into full effect; and will also warrant and for ever defend all and every sale or sales which the said Commissioners, or a majority of them, shall make to any purchaser or purchasers of any part or parts of the real and personal estates confiscated by this Act."Augusta, State of Georgia, 4th May, 1782."

"Whereas on the 1st day of March, which was in the year of our Lord 1778, an Act was passed for attainting certain persons therein mentioned of treason, and confiscating their estates for the use and benefit of this State, which said Act has not yet been carried into full execution: And whereas it is necessary that the names of the said persons so attainted by the same law should be inserted in a law, with the names of various other persons who have since the aforesaid time been guilty of treason against this State, and the authority of the same, by traitorously adhering to the King of Great Britain, and by aiding, assisting, abetting, and comforting the generals and other officers, civil and military, of the said King, to enforce his authority in and over this State, and the good people of the same: And whereas theaforesaid treason, and other atrocious crimes, justly merit forfeiture of protection and property:

"Be it enacted, by the representatives and freemen of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, that all and each of the following persons, viz. (here follow the names of 286 persons, late inhabitants of Georgia), be and they are hereby declared to be banished from this State for ever; and if any of the aforesaid shall remain in this State sixty days after the passing of this Act, or shall return to this State, the Governor or Commander-in-Chief for the time being is hereby authorised and required to cause such persons so remaining in orreturningto this State to be apprehended and committed to jail, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until a convenient opportunity shall offer for transporting the said persons beyond the seas to some part of the British King's dominions, which the Governor or Commander-in-Chief for the time being is hereby required to do; and if any of the said persons shall return to this State after such transportation, then and in such case he or they shall be adjudged and hereby declared tobe guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction of their having so returned as aforesaid,suffer deathwithout the benefit of clergy.

"And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular the estates, real and personal, of each and every one of the aforesaid persons, which they held, possessed or were entitled to, in law or equity, on the 19th of April, 1775, or which they have held since, or do hold in possession, or others hold in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, or which they may have, hold, or be possessed of, in right of others, together with all debts, dues, and demands that are or may be owing to the aforesaid persons, or either of them,be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State; and the monies arising from the sales which take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this Act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct.

"And whereas divers others persons, citizens of this State, and owing allegiance thereto (whose names are not herein recited), did, in violation of said allegiance, traitorously assist, abet, and participate in the aforesaid treasonable practices: Be it therefore enacted, by the authority of the aforesaid, that all and every of the person or persons under this description shall, on full proof and conviction of the same in a court of law, be liable and subjected to all the like pains, penalties, and forfeitures inflicted by this Act on those offenders whose names are particularly mentioned therein.

"And be it further enacted, that all debts, dues, or demands due or owing to merchants and others residing in Great Britain, be and they are hereby sequestered, and the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or a majority of them, are hereby empowered to recover, receive, and deposit the same in the Treasury of this State, in the same manner and under the same regulations as debts confiscated, there to remain for the use of this State until otherwise appropriated by this or any other House of Assembly.

"And whereas there are various persons, subjects of the King of Great Britain, possessed of or entitled to estates, real and personal, which justice and sound policy require should be applied to the benefit of this State: Be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular the estates, real and personal, belonging to persons being British subjects, of whatever kind or nature, of which they may be possessed, or others in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, and also all debts, dues, or demands owing or accruing to them, be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State; and the monies arising from the sale which shall take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this Act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct.

"And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the State will and do guarantee and defend the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or a majority of them, in all their proceedings for carrying the powers and authorities given them by the same into full effect; and will also warrant and for ever defend all and every sale or sales which the said Commissioners, or a majority of them, shall make to any purchaser or purchasers of any part or parts of the real and personal estates confiscated by this Act.

"Augusta, State of Georgia, 4th May, 1782."

[113]Historical Introduction to Col. Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, pp. 77-81.

[114]In the historical essay above quoted, the author says: "The examination now completed of the political condition of the colonies, of the state of parties, and of the divisions in particular classes in society, and avocations in life, leads to the conclusion that the number of our countrymen who wished to continue their connection with the mother country was very large. In nearly every Loyalist letter or other paper which I have examined, and in which the subject is mentioned, it is either assumed or stated in terms that theLOYALwerethe majority; and this opinion, I am satisfied, was very generally entertained by those who professed to have a knowledge of public sentiment. That the adherents of the Crown were mistaken, is certain. But yet in the Carolinas, and Georgia, and possibly in Pennsylvania the two parties differed but little in point of strength, while in New York the Whigs were far weaker than their opponents." (Historical Introduction to Col. Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, p. 65.)

[115]In the historical essay above quoted we have the following words:"What was the nature of the conflict between the two parties in South Carolina? Did the Whigs and their opponents meet in open and fair fight, and give and take the courtesies and observe the rules of civilized warfare? Alas, no! They murdered one another. I wish it were possible to use a milder word; but murder is the only one that can be employed to express the truth. Of this, however, the reader shall judge. I shall refrain from a statement of my own, and rely on the testimony of others."Gen. Greene thus spoke of the hand-to-hand strifes, which I stigmatize as murderous. 'The animosity,' said he, 'between the Whigs and Tories renders their situation truly deplorable. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither 'Whig' nor 'Tory' can live." (Historical Introduction to Colonel Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, p. 33.)

[115]In the historical essay above quoted we have the following words:

"What was the nature of the conflict between the two parties in South Carolina? Did the Whigs and their opponents meet in open and fair fight, and give and take the courtesies and observe the rules of civilized warfare? Alas, no! They murdered one another. I wish it were possible to use a milder word; but murder is the only one that can be employed to express the truth. Of this, however, the reader shall judge. I shall refrain from a statement of my own, and rely on the testimony of others.

"Gen. Greene thus spoke of the hand-to-hand strifes, which I stigmatize as murderous. 'The animosity,' said he, 'between the Whigs and Tories renders their situation truly deplorable. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither 'Whig' nor 'Tory' can live." (Historical Introduction to Colonel Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, p. 33.)

Treatment of the Loyalists by the Americans, at and after the American Revolution.

It remains now to ascertain thereception with which the applications of Loyalists were met in the several State Legislatures. During the last three years of the war, the principal operations of the British army were directed to the Southern States; and there the exasperations of party feeling may be supposed to have been the strongest.[116]

No where had arbitrary authority been exercised more unmercifully towards the revolutionists than by Earl Cornwallis and Lord Rawdon in South and North Carolina. Dr. Ramsay says: "The troops under the command of Cornwallis had spread waste and ruin over the face of all the country, for400 miles on the sea coast, and for 200 miles westward. Their marches from Charleston to Camden, from Camden to the River Dan, from the Dan through North Carolina to Wilmington, from Wilmington to Petersburg, and from Petersburg through many parts of Virginia, till they finally settled in Yorktown, made a route of more than 1,100 miles. Every place through which they passed in these various marches experienced the effects of their rapacity. Their numbers enabled them to go where they pleased; their rage for plunder disposed them to take whatever they had the means of removing; and their animosity to the Americans led them often to the wanton destruction of what they could neither use nor carry off. By their means, thousands had been involved in distress."[117]

It was therefore in South Carolina, more than any other State, that animosity might be expected to be intense and prolonged against the Loyalists; but among these men of the South, with their love of freedom, and dash and energy in war, there was a potent element of chivalry and British generosity which favourably contrasts with the Massachusetts school of persecuting bigotry and of hatred, from generation to generation, toEngland and English institutions. Accordingly we learn from Moultrie's Memoirs, Vol. II., p. 326, that "after the peace, a Joint Committee from the Senate and House of Representatives in South Carolina, chosen to hear the petitions of Loyalists who had incurred the penalties of the confiscation, banishment, and amercement laws, made a report to the separate Houses in favour of the great majority of the petitioners; and a great part of those names which were upon the confiscation, banishment and amercement lists were struck off."

"The petitions of others were afterwards presented from year to year, and ultimately almost the whole of them had their estates restored to them, and they were received as citizens."[118]

As to the proceedings of the other States, after the close of the war, in regard to the United Empire Loyalists, the following summary, from theHistorical Introductionto Colonel Sabine'sBiography of the American Loyalists, will be sufficient:

"At the peace, justice and good policy both required a general amnesty, and the revocation of the acts of disability and banishment, so that only those who had been guilty of flagrant crimes should be excluded from becoming citizens. Instead of this, however, the State Legislatures generally continued in a course of hostile action, and treated the conscientious and pure, and the unprincipled and corrupt, with the same indiscrimination as they had done during the struggle. In some parts of the country there really appears to have been a determination to place these misguided but then humbled men beyond the pale of human sympathy. In one legislative body, a petition from the banished, praying to be allowed to return to their homes, was rejected without a division; and a law was passed which denied to such as had remained within the State, and to all others who had opposed the revolution, the privilege of voting at the elections or of holding office. In another State, all who had sought royal protection were declared to be aliens, and to be incapable of claiming and holding property within it, and their return was forbidden. Other Legislatures refused to repeal such of their laws as conflicted with the conditions of the treaty of peace, and carried out the doctrines of the Statesalluded to above without material modification. But the temper of South Carolina was far more moderate. Acting on the wise principle that 'when the offenders are numerous, it is sometimes prudent to overlook their crimes,' she listened to the supplications made to her by the fallen, and restored to their civil and political rights a large portion of those who had suffered under her banishment and confiscation laws. The course pursued by New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia was different. These States were neither merciful nor just; and it is even true that Whigs, whose gallantry in the field, whose prudence in the Cabinet, and whose exertions in diplomatic stations abroad, had contributed essentially to the success of the conflict, were regarded with enmity on account of their attempts to produce a better state of feeling and more humane legislation. Had these States adopted a different line of conduct, their good example would not have been lost, probably, upon others, smaller and of less influence; and had Virginia especially been honest enough to have permitted the payment of debts which her people owed to British subjects before the war, the first years of our freedom would not have been stained with a breach of our public faith, and the long and angry controversy with Great Britain, which well-nigh involved us in a second war with her, might not have occurred.

"Eventually, popular indignation diminished; the statute book was divested of its most objectionable enactments, and numbers were permitted to occupy their old homes, and to recover the whole or part of their property; but by far the greater part of the Loyalists who quitted the country at the commencement of, or during the war, never returned; and of the many thousands who abandoned the United States after the peace, and while these enactments were in force, few, comparatively, had the desire or even the means to revisit the land from which they were expelled. Such persons and their descendants form a very considerable proportion of the population of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Upper Canada.

"It is equally to be regretted on grounds of policy that themajorities[119]in the State Legislatures did not remember, withMr. Jefferson, that separation from England 'was contemplated with affliction by all,' and that, like Mr. Adams, many sound Whigs 'would have given everything they possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided they could have had sufficient security for its continuance.' Then they might have done at an early moment after the cessation of hostilities, what they actually did do in a few years afterwards—namely, have allowed the banished Loyalists to return from exile, and, excluding those against whom enormities could have been proved, have conferred upon them, and upon those who had remained to be driven away at the peace, the rights of citizens. Most of them would have easily fallen into respect for the new state of things, old friendships and intimacies would have been revived, and long before this time all would have mingled in one mass. * *

"As a matter ofexpediency, how unwise was it to perpetuate the feelings of the opponents of the revolution, and to keep them a distinct class for a time, and for harm yet unknown! How ill-judged the measures that caused them to settle the hitherto neglected possessions of the British Crown! Nova Scotia had been won and lost, and lost and won, in the struggle between France and England, and the blood of New England had been poured out upon its soil like water. But when the Loyalists sought refuge there, what was it? Before the war, the fisheries of its coast, for the prosecution of which Halifax itself was founded, comprised, in public estimation, its chief value; and though Great Britain had quietly possessed it for about seventy years, the emigration to it of the adherents of the Crown from the United States, in a single year, more than doubled its population. Until hostile events brought Halifax into notice, no civilized people were poorer than the inhabitants of that colony; since, in 1775, the Assembly estimated that £1,200 currency—a sum less than $5,000—was the whole amount of money which they possessed. By causing the expatriation, then, of many thousands of our countrymen, among whom were the well-educated, the ambitious, and the well-versed in politics, we became the founders of two agricultural and commercialcolonies; for it is to be remembered that New Brunswick formed a part of Nova Scotia until 1784, and that the necessity of the division then made was of our own creation. In like manner we became the founders of Upper Canada. The Loyalists were the first settlers of the territory thus denominated by Act of 1791; and the principal object of the line of division of Canada, as established by Mr. Pitt's Act, was to place them, as a body, by themselves, and to allow them to be governed by laws more congenial than those which were deemed requisite for the government of the French on the St. Lawrence. Our expatriated countrymen were generally poor, and some of them were actually without the means of providing for their common wants from day to day. The Government for which they had become exiles was as liberal as they could have asked. It gave them lands, tools, materials for building, and the means of subsistence for two years; and to each of their children, as they became of age, two hundred acres of land. And besides this, of the offices created by the organization of a new Colonial Government, they were the chief recipients. The ties of kindred and suffering in a common cause created a strong bond of sympathy between them, and for years they bore the appellation of 'United Empire Loyalists.'"[120]

Back to Index Next