The Loyal Atlantic, Remaking the British Atlantic in the Revolutionary Era

Lesson learned: Save all drafts...

Key Questions:

Loyalism versus Loyalist - What are the defining differences?

How did Loyalists display their allegiances?

How did Loyalist identity evolve over time and across space?

How did Loyalists describe the Revolution itself?

In what terms did both sides, Loyalist and Patriot, describe each other?

Notes:

Loyalism: Practice and body of thought, opinion, and self understanding of allegiance 

Loyalist: Individuals who opposed Patriots during Revolution and embraced the above ideology 

Loyalist is NOT:

- A literal descriptor
 - Identifiable term for people on the losing side 

       -  It involves human conditions of action

       - Oaths, allegiances, promises, toasts, etc. 

Loyalists, especially long term colonists, did NOT automatically oppose republicanism
 - Some had resented British policies in the 1760's/1770's
 - But they refused to support military mobilization, outright independence, and a complete break with the         crown and empire

Several Loyalist migrations happened BEFORE the Declaration and end of the War
- Around Portland, Maine (then Falmouth) Loyalists left after plundering by the Rebel militia in October            1775

    - Migrated to Britain, Halifax, and those who went to Boston would also have to flee by March 1776

Identity crisis:
- Loyalists were part Colonialist and part Briton

       - Sameness and difference characterized the Briton and American relationship

       - Most rejected republican connotations of colonist identity 

              - But remained "American" in culture and inheritance 

White male Loyalists:
- Confirmed collective identity through cultural manifestations

            - Toasts, songs, and rituals

            - Defined themselves through whom they toasted, when, and how

                    - Toasts were centerpieces of dinners (PRIVATE sphere)

             - Sometimes published toasts in newspapers and pamphlets (PUBLIC sphere)

                    - Powerful act of affiliation and allegiance 

Reasons for support:

- Supported because their position, livelihood, or aspirations depended on it

       - Government officials, merchants, clergy, etc

- Supported out of simple concern for loyalty and respect for the law

       - Middle class, regular folks, etc. 

Loyalists had difficulty describing the Revolution

 - Difficulty in characterizing the conflict and its origins as external

        - Used internal descriptors to state it as a "Civil War"

Describing each side:

- Patriots were described as "rebels", "revolters", and "enemies of the British government"
- Loyalists were described as "loyal and faithful subjects" and "friends of the government"

Post war identity:

- Same factors still acted to bind Loyalists exiles loosely together

        - Displacement from the Revolution

         - Assumed a shared status - Migrants and settlers 

          - Refugees relationship with Britain

                    - Shared determination to assert their rights as British subjects

                    - Started to view themselves as an interest group with special status because of their service and sacrifice 

                           

Migration locations:

 - New Brunswick, Upper Canada, and the Bahamas

          - Became dominant element

 - Nova Scotia, Grenada, Jamaica, and Sierra Leone

           - Enclaves (territory with or surrounded by larger territory where inhabitants are culturally/ethnically distinct) 

 - Provincial Britain

Loyalist Slaves: Plight of those who remained enslaved to Loyalists

Since early 17th century Spanish Florida was a haven for runaway slaves

With the departures of the Royal Governors of GA and SC (1775 & 1776) the collapse of British authority in the south followed 

          - Change in government brought adjustments and violent change to Loyalists

Patriots started targeting Loyalists

- Testimony of John Hopkins (tarred and feathered by local Sons of Liberty)

Social pressure coupled with fear of violence forced Loyalists to move to St. Augustine with many slaves

As the population boomed because of migration...the need for land did as well

- St. Augustine became overcrowded and under-supplied
 - Some Loyalist planters sought to re-establish their lifestyle

           - Applied for land grants from governor 

           - A few tried to bypass government and buy land directly from Native Americans

                    - Ran into trouble with money exchange and legality

Growing number of African/African-American and Loyalist deflections frustrated and alarmed GA Patriots

 - Invasions needed to prevent deserters from Loyalist uniting 

 - Raids in 1776 - 1778

         - Plantations plundered 

          - Some owners burned their own plantations to keep Patriots from using it 

Unnatural Rebellion: Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution by Ruma Chopra

The book is an in depth examination of the situation that loyalists in New York City during the American Revolution. It cuts through all class and religions and races.

Thesis: The antagonistic relationship between loyalist civilians and the British military curbed the loyalist reach. In preserving, their military authority in New York City, the British sacrificed the legitimacy of the loyalist alternative.

Thoughts:

Intro/Chapter 1:

-Loyalists wanted to defend their privileged and free lives under the empire. They believed the "patriots" were the ones that were repressing liberty because under the rule of the empire, the colonists were allowed to prosper.
- "unnatural rebellion" was a common theme and it signified alarm, horror and revulsion toward breaking/ rebelling from the British empire.
- Overall sentiment in NYC was that American liberty rested upon British Crown.
- Extremely diverse population with a mix of Englishmen, Scot, Irish, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, Africans with all the religions that comes with it. Including Dutch Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, among others.
Diversity hurt NYC as speaking as one voice.
- Merchants and landholders with close ties to royal gov't or transatlantic commerce dominated NYC.
-The Seven Years War made everyone very rich and then a recession hit when British troops went home.

Chapter 2
- British reaction to Boston Tea Party provided a base for colonial rebellion. Everyone in the colonies (including Loyalists) believed that Parliament went about the wrong way after the Boston Tea Party. The reason the British were so harsh was because they saw the Massachusetts conflict as a microcosm for what happens when the common people have power and rule. In NYC, British government refusal to compromise with New York leaders, that wanted to keep an advantageous position between the colonies and empire, led to fuel for the radicals/rebels in the colonies that said the British were suppressing their will to live.  

Chapter 3
After the British took NYC, the loyalists and the British army and authority believed the "rebellion" would be put down quickly. And New Yorkers welcomed the British with jubilation because the "rebels" left no option for the colonists in NYC. You were either with us or against us. They treated loyalists with extreme violence and harshness. Also, loyalists believed that prosperity would return with the British control of NYC because the that would have to be the port in the Northern colonies to import and export goods. But the British also upset the colonists with their leniency on the rebels. They gave three proclamations to the "rebels" and this upset loyalists because they felt the only way to quell this rebellion was to instill fear into the rebels, but the British government was into reconciliation and tried not to alienate anyone. Plus the loyalists wanted normal life to resume once the British took back NYC. It didn't happen and military rule was put into place.   The question also arose about why didn't the loyalists write their own constitution. First it was a illegal because Parliament only had the power to make laws and the loyalists could not come to a consensus on what it should say. The loyalists believed in negotiation not arms.

Chapter 4
The British thought the war was going to end soon because the rebel armies were so badly equipped and damaged. They were constant reports of desertion and the army was in tatters. However, British general Howe fumbled badly in 1777. Even though, the losses at Trenton and Princeton were not huge battles; they were colonial victories and boosted morale for the rebellion. This allowed the French to officially announce an alliance with the colonies, which the loyalists feared more than anything cause the Catholic tyranny had an opportunity to aid in weakening the British empire and now it had become a global war. Also, Clinton changed the war strategy by a focus on defending the West Indies and campaigning in the Southern colonies. Toward the end of this, a combination of British setbacks and British neglect of the loyalists along with an indefinite war alienated many New York loyalists.

Chapter 5
The alienation and non use of loyalists in the NY area continued to plague and strain the relationship between the British and loyalists because the British refused to use the loyalists in real combat situations. The British commanders saw them more as slave labor and could take the place of British regulars who did logistical work along with the slave population that the British offered freedom too if they came to the British side. The loyalists were seen as unequal to British regulars because they did not have the proper training or upbringing. Furthermore, the British authority did not trust the loyalists to serve in combat. However, it did not serve the British well to not use the loyalists in combat because it could have provided a boost on the battlefield. Whether they would have made a substantial impact is unknown.

Chapter 6
The influx of "refugees" into NYC also complicated the situation between loyalists and the British government. Between the years of 1777 to 1781, NYC's population more than doubled to around 25,000. They came from throughout the colonies because they were looking for work and they were looking for basic supplies that they needed to survive and it was hard to get those types of things elsewhere. New York was a big port and still received imports. The British government doled out some money for support but it was not nearly enough to sustain the populations that came in. However, there were steps taken at this point to establish a civilian rule in NYC again. But there were again problems with the British...They could not satisfy several important groups. There could satisfy the white underclass because there were not enough supplies to go around for everyone and they felt entitled and should be the first to get some and get the most. They could not satisfy blacks because they wanted protection and freedom and got neither because there was extreme disdain of slaves from loyalists that they were just taking up space and needed supplies. Also, alienate were the early loyalists who felt like they should receive higher priority because they announced their loyalty to the crown in the beginning and should be served first. The later loyalists were also upset because they wanted the British crown to keep their promise of amnesty and prosperity if they pledged their allegiance to the crown. All loyalists were divided on issues and all were alienated by the crown.

Chapter 7
In 1780, it was clear to the loyalists in NYC that the British commanders or authority would trust them in situations that were vital to British success in the war. British authority completed loyalist pleas and did so throughout the war. In the beginning, the British authorities tried to appease loyalists by saying they would look at all options, later in the war, they just ignored their requests. Loyalists knew the war effort was failing, mostly cause of British military incompetency. At this point, NYC loyalists realized that they would not play a role at all in the British strategy to win the war and had to wait to hear results from the South. While they trickled in. It did not improve their moods.

Chapter 8/ Conclusion
Loyalists took the brunt of the war because they played no real role in the British strategy and on top of facing the violence of the rebels and the British soldiers. The loyalists sacrificed everything for the greater good of the empire and when the British lost; they got everything taken. The patriots hated them for their siding with the British tyrannical government and crown while, the British authorities saw them as annoying and irritating and a waste of time. The British promised them rewards and they got nothing. The end result was that the NYC loyalists were the road kill in a collision of British imperialists and American colonists. They cursed the rebels publicly and the British privately. Carrying with them an almost equal knowledge and suspicion of the United States and the British Empire.

5 sentences:
Loyalism in New York City was defined by a tense relationship between the loyalists and British authorities. The New York City loyalists became increasingly annoyed with the British and the alienated by the British by their lenient policies toward the rebels and a negligent policy toward the wants and demands of the loyalists. Ultimately in New York, loyalists had a more difficult time dealing with British authorities than the rebels because British commanders showed incompetence throughout the war, British authorities refused to use loyalists in positions that mattered because they lacked trust in loyalists and the British took advantage of the loyalists desire for reunion. Loyalists in NYC demonstrated that loyalists bore the brunt of the consequences during the revolution and in the aftermath of the revolution and paid the worst price for wanting to protect their liberty as British citizens.

Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution by Simon Schama

What were the motivations behind slaves as loyalists? Opportunism or was there actual patriotism for the British cause?

The Patriot army was ambivalent toward free blacks until the British courted them in 1775 and 1776. Blacks who previously served were discharged by 1775, and states like NH excluded blacks from serving in militias. Americans saw arming free blacks as one step away from arming slaves and sowing the seeds of insurrection. In November 1775, Lord Dunmore (VA's Royal Governor) promised liberty to slaves who reached British lines and served with the British army.

Blacks were 20% of the entire population of in the colonies and 40% of Virginia's populations. Blacks knew the royal army had a more likely chance of giving slaves liberty than the Patriot army. Slaves knew what they were doing – there was no truth to the myth of black ignorance. They also recognized the hypocrisy in declaring independence for all men and keeping slavery active – even to the extent hunting down runaway slaves to keep the 'particular institution' alive. Patriot leaders also recognized this but tried to spin the hypocrisy back on the British – they started the slave trade after all. There were black petitions to colonial governors for liberation, but they were all unsuccessful.

There was a Patriot fear that the British were starting a black rebellion by courting the free blacks and slaves. There were already slave insurrections in South America and the Caribbean by this point, and throughout 1775, there were alleged black conspiracies to take over America by killing whites in honor of George III. Slaves often learned of British freedom thanks to a pamphlet published in 1774, and in advertisements in colonial newspapers. The British were ultimately not responsible for sowing insurrectionist thought – it was there already.

Both British and American generals saw the benefit, albeit a small one, in raising a black army. Lord Dunmore's threat to liberate slaves was, in the end, an incredible failure. The hope was that slaveholders would stop rebelling – or at the very least he would gain a black army. Instead, slaveholders resisted – and some neutralists joined the Patriots. In their minds, the British were trying to destroy “civil society." The actual number of blacks that went to Dunmore was a very small minority, and more slaves likely took advantage of warfare to run and hide in the deep swampland. Dunmore was demonized by the Patriots, obviously, but at least 5,000 (1/3 of Georgia's slaves) went from their plantation to the British in return for service to the King. George Washington's own slave left to go serve with the British.

In SC, captured loyalist slaves were given as bounties to white recruits, and in GA, every soldier who proved they fought was given a slave. Slaves were sometimes given to soldiers instead of monetary pay. After the fall of Savannah and Charleston, 25,000 blacks left plantations to follow the British. This created a logistical crisis for the British. Many slaves died of smallpox or typhus, some were quarantined to prevent infecting the troops, and a significant portion of the rest remained slaves and worked on public works or were given as rewards to loyalists. Despite these obstacles, to slaves, the British were the enemies of their enemies, and slaves would rather take their chances with the British than continue to be enslaved.

British-controlled New York was a haven for runaway slaves – they could freely worship, get married, and attend the theater. Some blacks from states like NJ, RI, and CT fought with the Patriots, but had little hope of liberation if they were not already free. When the British army came through NC and VA, hundreds and thousands of blacks followed them. A number of slaves followed the British because they were starving on plantations – due to raids, crops were being destroyed and livestock were killed. At the end of the war, black British soldiers were recaptured by the Americans and often auctioned off.

Sentences: Thousands of slaves followed the British for opportunistic reasons - most often and most likely that they had heard of true liberty and freedom for all in Britain, despite the promises from the Patriots. Although slavery was not outlawed in England until the 1830s, several court cases mandated that slaves could not be bought or sold in England, a more progressive stance than any of the colonies had. Any forcible threats by the British to take back slaves or free blacks were met with outrage from the Patriots. Free blacks and slaves also recognized the hypocrisy of the Patriots in declaring independence but keeping slavery alive. Despite poor chances of survival living among the British, due to lack of inoculation and high rates of diseases, slaves would rather side with them instead of the Patriots.

Maya Jasanoff, The Other Side of Revolution: Loyalists in the British Empire

William and Mary Quarterly, 2008

- Over 60,000 loyalists left the colonies and took at least 15,000 slaves with them.

- Upon leaving America, loyalists moved to: Canada, Britain, the Caribbean, India, Australia, Sierra Leon, and India, showing one of the ways in which the Revolution had a global impact.  They considered themselves to be British, regardless of where they were living in the Empire.

- Loyalists often found themselves without a real home after leaving America.  They were forced to leave their home in America and had difficulty adjusting to life in other parts of the empire, even in Britain, and many found themselves at odds with the government.  However, Those who were able to settle into an area, were often able to recover and become successful.

Ex.  After being forced to leave America, the Johnston family attempted to make a home in Florida, Scotland, and Jamaica, before finally settling in Nova Scotia.

- The British attempted to provide for loyalists refugees and coordinate evacuations from the colonies.  Some refugee camps were unable to care for the huge numbers of people, resulting in sickness and starvation.

- Loyalists soldiers were promised land in British territories in return for their service.

- The Loyalists Claims Commission was set up by Britain to investigate loyalists’ claims and award compensation.  The Commission received 3225 claims and awarded £3 million (only 1/3 of claimed losses).  Many loyalists were dissatisfied with sum they received.

- The Creek and Cherokee in the Southern colonies felt betrayed and abandoned at the conclusion of he Revolution, when the Spanish gained Florida.  The British did maintain friendly relations with the Mohawk in the north.  The Mohawk were viewed as more valuable allies, because they were strategically located along the American boarder and boarder of British Canada.

 - While some blacks gained freedom through joining the British in the Revolution, many more left the colonies as slaves to loyalists.  Slavery was still valuable on plantations in the Caribbean.
 

Sentences:

Allegiance to Britain resulted in many losses for loyalists; however, they were often able to succeed in their new homes thanks in part to aid from the British government.  The treatment and aid provided by the British government to different groups of loyalists was not always sufficient and tended to be based on the value of that particular group as a part of the Empire. The migration of loyalists out of America and into other parts of the British Empire was very much a global movement. While they considered themselves to be British citizens, loyalists did not always agree with the British government.  The loyalists view of being British and the governments view of being British did not necessarily coincide.

The King’s Friends: The Composition and Motives of the American Loyalist Claimants; Uses and Abuses of the American Loyalists’ Claims: A Critique of Quantitative Analyses

 The King’s Friends: The Composition and Motives of the American Loyalist Claimants by Wallace Brown

-The author estimates that there were 160,000 to 384,000 active Loyalists in America.  This amounted to 7.6% to 18.0% of the population in Colonial America at beginning of the Revolution.

-The author defines a “Loyalist” as being any person who was forced into exile for supporting Britain or rendered substantial military or civil service to the British.

-Loyalist claimants argued that Loyalist numbers could have been higher if the British had been more interested in giving support to Loyalists and were more willing to allocate resources to help the Loyalists.  There are recorded instances of Loyalist being harassed and their property being damaged or stolen by British and Hessian forces. 

-The Loyalist had the most influence in New York, South Carolina, and Georgia.  This is due to loyalism being more prominent in colonies occupied by the British army.

-Loyalism was concentrated in the urban coastal areas of colonies for the most part.  The only colonies that had a significant population of backcountry Loyalist were New York and North Carolina. 

-The reason for the Loyalist concentration in urban coastal areas was that a significant portion of royal officers, immigrants, merchants, and professionals were Loyalists, and these types of individuals were most present in coastal cities. 

-A slight majority of the Loyalist claimants were immigrants and not born in America.  A higher proportion of immigrants in America were Loyalists compared to the proportion of native born Americans who were Loyalist. 

Uses and Abuses of the American Loyalists’ Claims: A Critique of Quantitative Analyses by Eugene R. Fingerhut

-The author argues that the “quantitative method” is not effective because the sources about the loyalist are ambiguous or devoid of enough data to make an accurate quantitative study of the Loyalists.  According to Fingerhut the historical data is too vague. 

-These studies only can be accurate about what Loyalist Claimants sought from the commission and cannot accurately measure their economic or social status.  The claimants could have potentially overstated or understated their losses if they believed it would help their claim.

-Another issue with using claims data to measure Loyalists wealth and losses is that the Commission did not have guidelines for determining the worth of colonial currency vs. British currency.

-The author argues that restrictions that the British put on claims may have deterred Loyalist from filing petitions and thus would be left out of a statistical survey.  

-The author states that commercial and office holding coastal loyalists are overemphasized in studies of the claimants because they had the easiest access to British forces.  It was much more difficult for a loyalist backcountry farmer to file a claim because he would likely be isolated from British forces.  According to the author, rural and poorer loyalists could be underrepresented because of this.

5 Sentences

During the American Revolution there were an estimated 160,000 to 384,000 Loyalists actively supporting the British in the American colonies.  Loyalism was most active in New York, South Carolina, and Georgia due to British military occupation allowing Loyalists more influence in those colonies.  Loyalism was concentrated in urban, coastal areas and was dominated by merchants, royal officials, and professionals.  The exception to this was the large population of Loyalist backcountry farmers in New York and North Carolina.  Loyalist writings and interviews after the war show that the British army did not provide much help to the Loyalists and some Loyalists were harassed by British and Hessian soldiers. 

Robert M. Calhoon, The Loyalists in Revolutionary America (Part I)

Originally published in 1965, reprinted in 1973

A top-down history emphasizing elites: political players, merchants, lawyers, and Anglican clergy

Thesis: Loyalism was more than simple self-interest.  It was the result of many factors including a "perception" of political reality in which loyalty to the Crown made sense of their political world.

Loyalists Political Perceptions:

#1: (1760s-1770) Principled Loyalists.  Believed (generally) in virtual representation through Parliament. Parliament could legitimately tax British people.  Believed that colonists had English rights.   Privately believed Parliament was behaving foolishly, but that colonial violence was counterproductive.  Felt a "mob logic" was behind agitations.  For instance, Governor James Wright (GA) said colonists had the "strange, mistaken ideas that no power can tax or restrain them but themselves or representatives of their own choosing." (12)

#2: (1774-75) Accommodating Loyalists (aka Moderates): Believed compromise was possible.  Believed that Parliament had overstepped its bounds.  Believed the British Constitution must be flexible or reinterpreted to account for complexities of Empire.  For instance, Joseph Galloway (delegate to 1st Continental Congress) argued for a new Plan of Union with two Parliaments: an American Parliament and a London Parliament.  Said that "both countries should retreat a little and take other ground, seeing that which they are now upon is likely to prove dangerous and distressing to both." (88)

"The search for a viable alternative to the awful choice between submission (to Parliament) and Revolutionary tyranny (to the mob)" (177)

#3: (1774-77 [&beyond?]) Doctrinaire Tories: Anglican clergy and merchants whose business depended on British government.  Emphasis on social order and law.  All resistance to King & Parliament morally wrong.  "More shrill" and later arriving, this version is what most Americans remember.


Also- Neutralists: Quakers,

Loyalists torn between belief in submission to parliament and belief in the rights of Englishmen.

Many Loyalists were highly sympathetic to colonial grievances, but could not condone mob violence or military rebellion.

Some Loyalists were originally revolutionary agitators, including some attendees of the Stamp Act Congress and the First Continental Congress.


Thoughts:

Three-fold divisions to think through

Principled Loyalists
Moderate/Compromise Loyalists
Tories

Ideology (why are they Loyalists?)
Chronology (when are they Loyalists?)
Geography (where are they Loyalists?) 

SENTENCES: (I couldn't do it in 5!!!!!!)

Although anyone suspected of not being a Patriot for any reason was often labeled "Tory," Loyalism actually evolved over time through three basic stages: Principled loyalists, moderates, and Tories. Many people later called Loyalists advocated for colonial rights before the war.  In the 1760s-70s, Massachusetts's Lt. Governor Thomas Hutchinson and Georgia Governor James Wright enforced British orders in public while secretly trying to convince London officials that recent taxation policies should be abandoned.  The early loyalists agreed that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies, but did not think they were using that right wisely.  As agitation moved into outright war, other colonists desperately sought a middle way between rebellion and submission to Parliament.  These moderate Loyalists created plans in which America would remain British, but receive the political independence they sought.  Philadelphian Joseph Galloway was a member to the First Continental Congress, where he proposed the creation of a new American Parliament.  His proposal was narrowly tabled.  After the war, however, any true hope of moderation passed.  Leaders in this time became increasingly angry against the Patriots for starting the war and disrupting social and economic life.  These proud Tories, often Anglican clergymen and merchants with strong ties to British commerce, demanded absolute submission of the people to the will of the King and Parliament.  After the war, Americans used these later voices as proof that Loyalists would have made them submit to tyrannical government.  In part, this helped justify the confiscation of Loyalist's property after the war.

Reading Assignments

Virginia “The Empress of Empire Issues”	Maya Jasanoff, “The Other Side of Revolution: Loyalists in the British Empire,” William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 65, No. 2, 205-232
Bradley “This Guys Got Class”	Ruma Chopra, Unnatural Rebellion: Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013)
Aura “The Web Spinner”	Edward Larkin, “Loyalism” in Edward G. Gray and Jane Kamensky, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University, 2013), 291-310.
Steven “The Numbers Guy”	-Wallace Brown, The King’s Friends: the composition and motives of the American loyalist claimants (Brown University Press, 1965) - “Uses and Abuses of American Loyalists Claims: A Critique of Quantitative Analysis,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, Vol. 25 (1968)
Spencer “Race and Slavery Expert”	Simon Schama, Rough Crossings: The Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution (Harper Perennial, 2007).
Chandler “Atlantic World Guru”	Jerry Bannister, Liam Riordan, The Loyal Atlantic: Remaking the British Atlantic in the Revolutionary Era 2nd Edition, (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2013)
Dr. Moore “Tweed Coat Screams Loyalist!”	Robert M. Calhoon, The Loyalist in Revolutionary America  & The Loyalist Perception and Other Essays

Project Description

Goal

            500 words on the Loyalists in the American Revolution

            Audience: Undergraduate students in the US History Survey

           

Issues to cover

Chronology (Early Conflict, War, Post-War)

Class and status

Ethnicity

Native Peoples

Slaves

Ideologies

Religion

Views of government and empire