United Empire Loyalists
United Empire Loyalists is the name given to individuals who are descendants of
British loyalists during the
American War of Independence who left the 13 rebellious American colonies for the future
Canada: the two British colonies of
Quebec (including the
Eastern Townships and modern-day
Ontario) and
Nova Scotia (including modern-day
New Brunswick). The
Jay Treaty promised the Loyalists compensation for their lost property although the American
Congress essentially refused to
"....restore seized property, redress grievances, and permit loyalists to return home to live under the new jurisdiction" (Moore's
The Loyalists, page 148).\nIn the
United Kingdom, a Commission for Claims and Losses was established to compensate loyalists if they would relinquish their claims to the British government -- but only about 2000 claims were made. The rest, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 claims, remain unresolved to this day.
Numbers
\nJohn Adams and other authorities in the United States have admitted that\nwhen the first shot of the revolution was fired by "the embattled\nfarmers" of Concord and Lexington, the Loyalists numbered one-third of\nthe whole population of the colonies, or seven hundred thousand whites.\nOthers believe that the number was larger, and that the revolutionary\nparty was in a minority even after the declaration of independence. The\ngreater number of the Loyalists were to be found in the present state of\nNew York, where the capital was in possession of the British from\nSeptember, 1776, until the evacuation in 1783. They were also the\nmajority in Pennsylvania and the southern colonies of South Carolina and\nGeorgia. In all the other states they represented a large minority of\nthe best class of their respective communities. It is estimated that\nthere were actually from thirty to thirty-five thousand, at one time or\nother, enrolled in regularly organised corps, without including the\nbodies which waged guerilla warfare in South Carolina and elsewhere.
Politics
\nIt is only within a decade of years that some historical writers in the\nUnited States have had the courage and honesty to point out the false\nimpressions long entertained by the majority of Americans with respect\nto the Loyalists, who were in their way as worthy of historical eulogy\nas the people whose efforts to win independence were crowned with\nsuccess. Professor Tyler, of Cornell University, points out that these\npeople comprised "in general a clear majority of those who, of whatever\ngrade of culture or of wealth, would now be described as conservative\npeople." A clear majority of the official class, of men representing\nlarge commercial interests and capital, of professional training and\noccupation, clergymen, physicians, lawyers and teachers, "seem to have\nbeen set against the ultimate measures of the revolution". He assumes\nwith justice that, within this conservative class, one may "usually find\nat least a fair portion of the cultivation, of the moral thoughtfulness,\nof the personal purity and honour, existing in the community to which\nthey happen to belong." He agrees with Dr. John Fiske, and other\nhistorical writers of eminence in the United States, in comparing the\nLoyalists of 1776 to the Unionists of the southern war of secession from\n1861 until 1865. They were "the champions of national unity, as resting\non the paramount authority of the general government." In other words\nthey were the champions of a United British Empire in the 18th century.
"The old colonial system," says that thoughtful writer Sir J.R. Seeley,\n"was not at all tyrannous; and when the breach came the grievances of\nwhich the Americans complained, though perfectly real, were smaller than\never before or since led to such mighty consequences." The leaders among\nthe Loyalists, excepting a few rash and angry officials probably,\nrecognised that there were grievances which ought to be remedied. They\nlooked on the policy of the party in power in Great Britain as\ninjudicious in the extreme, but they believed that the relations between\nthe colonies and the mother-state could be placed on a more satisfactory\nbasis by a spirit of mutual compromise, and not by such methods as were\ninsidiously followed by the agitators against England. The Loyalists\ngenerally contended for the legality of the action of parliament, and\nwere supported by the opinion of all high legal authorities; but the\ncauses of difficulty were not to be adjusted by mere lawyers, who\nadhered to the strict letter of the law, but by statesmen who recognised\nthat the time had come for reconsidering the relations between the\ncolonies and the parent state, and meeting the new conditions of their\nrapid development and political freedom. These relations were not to be\nplaced on an equitable and satisfactory basis by mob-violence and\nrevolution. All the questions at issue were of a constitutional\ncharacter, to be settled by constitutional methods.
Unhappily, English statesmen of that day paid no attention to, and had\nno conception of, the aspirations, sentiments and conditions of the\ncolonial peoples when the revolutionary war broke out. The king wished\nto govern in the colonies as well as in the British Isles, and\nunfortunately the unwise assertion of his arrogant will gave dangerous\nmen like Samuel Adams, more than once, the opportunity they wanted to\nstimulate public irritation and indignation against England.
It is an interesting fact, that the relations between Great Britain and\nCanada are now regulated by just such principles as were\nurged in the interests of England and her colonies at the time of the American revolution\nby Governor Thomas Hutchinson, a great Loyalist, to whom\njustice is at last being done by impartial historians in the country\nwhere his motives and acts were so long misunderstood and\nmisrepresented. "Whatever measures," he wrote to a correspondent in\nEngland, "you may take to maintain the authority of parliament, give me\nleave to pray they may be accompanied with a declaration that it is not\nthe intention of parliament to deprive the colonies of their subordinate\npower of legislation, nor to exercise the supreme power except in such\ncases and upon such occasions as an equitable regard to the interests of\nthe whole empire shall make necessary." But it took three-quarters of a\ncentury after the coming of the Loyalists to realise these statesmanlike\nconceptions of Hutchinson in the colonial dominions of England to the\nnorth of the dependencies which she lost in the latter part of the\neighteenth century.
Similar opinions were entertained by Joseph Galloway, Jonathan Boucher,\nJonathan Odell, Samuel Seabury, Chief Justice Smith, Judge Thomas Jones,\nBeverley Robinson and other men of weight and ability among the\nLoyalists, who recognised the short-sightedness and ignorance of the\nBritish authorities, and the existence of real grievances. Galloway, one\nof the ablest men on the constitutional side, and a member of the first\ncontinental congress, suggested a practical scheme of imperial\nfederation, well worthy of earnest consideration at that crisis in\nimperial affairs. Eminent men in the congress of 1774 supported this\nstatesmanlike mode of placing the relations of England and the colonies\non a basis which would enable them to work harmoniously, and at the same\ntime give full scope to the ambition and the liberties of the colonial\ncommunities thus closely united; but unhappily for the empire the\nrevolutionary element carried the day. The people at large were never\ngiven an opportunity of considering this wise proposition, and the\nmotion was erased from the records of congress. In its place, the people\nwere asked to sign "articles of association" which bound them to cease\nall commercial relations with England. Had Galloway's idea been carried\nout to a successful issue, we might have now presented to the world the\nnoble spectacle of an empire greater by half a continent and\nseventy-five millions of people.
But while Galloway and other Loyalists failed in their measures of\nadjusting existing difficulties and remedying grievances, history can\nstill do full justice to their wise counsel and resolute loyalty, which\nrefused to assist in tearing the empire to fragments. These men, who\nremained faithful to this ideal to the very bitter end, suffered many\nindignities at the hands of the professed lovers of liberty, even in\nthose days when the questions at issue had not got beyond the stage of\nlegitimate argument and agitation. The courts of law were closed and the\njudges prevented from fulfilling their judicial functions. No class of\npersons, not even women, were safe from the insults of intoxicated\nruffians. The clergy of the Church of England were especially the object\nof contumely.
During the war the passions of both parties to the controversy were\naroused to the highest pitch, and some allowance must be made for\nconditions which were different from those which existed when the\nquestions at issue were still matters of argument. It is impossible in\ntimes of civil strife to cool the passions of men and prevent them from\nperpetrating cruelties and outrages which would be repugnant to their\nsense of humanity in moments of calmness and reflection. Both sides,\nmore than once, displayed a hatred of each other that was worthy of the\nAmerican Iroquois themselves. The legislative bodies were fully as\nvindictive as individuals in the persecution of the Loyalists.\nConfiscation of estate, imprisonment, disqualification for office,\nbanishment, and even death in case of return from exile, were among the\npenalties to which these people were subject by the legislative acts of\nthe revolutionary party.
If allowance can be made for the feelings of revenge and passion which\nanimate persons under the abnormal conditions of civil war, no\nextenuating circumstances appear at that later period when peace was\nproclaimed and congress was called upon to fulfil the terms of the\ntreaty and recommend to the several independent states the restoration\nof the confiscated property of Loyalists. Even persons who had taken up\narms were to have an opportunity of receiving their estates back on\ncondition of refunding the money which had been paid for them, and\nprotection was to be afforded to those persons during twelve months\nwhile they were engaged in obtaining the restoration of their property.\nIt was also solemnly agreed by the sixth article of the treaty that\nthere should be no future confiscations or prosecutions, and that no\nperson should "suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person,\nliberty or property," for the part he might have taken in the war. Now\nwas the time for generous terms, such terms as were even shown by the\ntriumphant North to the rebellious South at the close of the war of\nsecession. The recommendations of congress were treated with contempt by\nthe legislatures in all the states except in South Carolina, and even\nthere the popular feeling was entirely opposed to any favour or justice\nbeing shown to the beaten party. The sixth article of the treaty, a\nsolemn obligation, was violated with malice and premeditation. The\nLoyalists, many of whom had returned from Great Britain with the hope of\nreceiving back their estates, or of being allowed to remain in the\ncountry, soon found they could expect no generous treatment from the\nsuccessful republicans. The favourite Whig occupation of tarring and\nfeathering was renewed. Loyalists were warned to leave the country as\nsoon as possible, and in the south some were shot and hanged because\nthey did not obey the warning. The Loyalists, for the most part, had no\nother course open to them than to leave the country they still loved and\nwhere they had hoped to die.
Settlement in Canada
\nThe British government endeavoured, so far as it was in its power, to\ncompensate the Loyalists for the loss of their property by liberal\ngrants of money and land, but despite all that was done for them the\nmajority felt a deep bitterness in their hearts as they landed on new\nshores of which they had heard most depressing accounts. More than\nthirty-five thousand men, women and children, made their homes within\nthe limits of the present Dominion. In addition to these actual American\nLoyalists, there were several thousands of negroes, fugitives from their\nowners, or servants of the exiles, who have been generally counted in\nthe loose estimates made of the migration of 1783, and the greater\nnumber of whom were at a later time deported from Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. Of the exiles at least twenty-five thousand went to the maritime\ncolonies, and built up the province of New Brunswick, where\nrepresentative institutions were established in 1784. Of the ten\nthousand people who sought the valley of the St Lawrence, some settled\nin Montreal, at Chambly, and in parts of the present Eastern Townships,\nbut the great majority accepted grants of land on the banks of the St.\nLawrence--from River Beaudette, on Lake St. Francis, as far as the\nbeautiful Bay of Quinte--in the Niagara District, and on the shores of\nLake Erie. The coming of these people, subsequently known by the name of\n"U.E. Loyalists"--a name appropriately given to them in recognition of\ntheir fidelity to a United Empire--was a most auspicious event for the\nBritish-American provinces, the greater part of which was still a\nwilderness. There was in the\nAcadian provinces, afterwards divided into New Brunswick and Nova\nScotia, a British population of only some 14,000, mostly confined\nto the peninsula. In the valley of the St. Lawrence there was a French\npopulation of probably 100,000 persons, dwelling chiefly on the banks of\nthe St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal. The total British\npopulation of the province of Quebec did not exceed 2000, residing for\nthe most part in the towns of Quebec and Montreal. No English people\nwere found west of Lake St. Louis; and what is now the populous province\nof Ontario was a mere wilderness, except where loyal refugees had\ngathered about the English fort at Niagara, or a few French settlers had\nmade homes for themselves on the banks of the Detroit River and Lake St.\nClair. The migration of between 30,000 and 40,000 Loyalists to the\nmaritime provinces and the valley of the St. Lawrence was the saving of\nBritish interests in the great region which England still happily\nretained in North America.
The refugees who arrived in Halifax in 1783 were so numerous that\nhundreds had to be placed in the churches or in cabooses taken from the\ntransports and ranged along the streets. At Guysborough, in Nova\nScotia--so named after Sir Guy Carleton--the first village, which was\nhastily built by the settlers, was destroyed by a bush fire, and many\npersons only saved their lives by rushing into the sea. At Shelburne, on\nthe first arrival of the exiles, there were seen "lines of women sitting\non the rocky shore and weeping at their altered condition." Towns and\nvillages, however, were soon built for the accommodation of the people.\nAt Shelburne, or Port Roseway--anglicised from the French _Razoir_--a\ntown of fourteen thousand people, with wide streets, fine houses, some\nof them containing furniture and mantel-pieces brought from New York,\narose in two or three years. The name of New Jerusalem had been given to\nthe same locality some years before, but it seemed a mockery to the\nLoyalists when they found that the place they had chosen for their new\nhome was quite unsuited for settlement. A beautiful harbour lay in\nfront, and a rocky country unfit for farmers in the rear of their\nambitious town, which at one time was the most populous in British North\nAmerica. In the course of a few years the place was almost deserted, and\nsank for a time into insignificance. A pretty town now nestles by the\nside of the beautiful and spacious harbour which attracted the first too\nhopeful settlers; and its residents point out to the tourist the sites\nof the buildings of last century, one or two of which still stand, and\ncan show many documents and relics of those early days.
Over 12,000 Loyalists, largely drawn from the disbanded loyal\nregiments of the old colonies, settled in New Brunswick. The name of\nParrtown was first given, in honour of the governor of Nova Scotia, to\nthe infant settlement which became the city of St. John, in 1785, when\nit was incorporated. The first landing of the loyal pioneers took place\non May 18, 1783, at what is now the Market Slip of this\ninteresting city. Previous to 1783, the total population of the province\ndid not exceed seven hundred souls, chiefly at Maugerville and other\nplaces on the great river. The number of Loyalists who settled on the\nSt. John River was at least ten thousand, of whom the greater proportion\nwere established at the mouth of the river, which was the base of\noperations for the peopling of the new province. Some adventurous\nspirits took possession of the abandoned French settlements at Grimross\nand St. Anne's, where they repaired some ruined huts of the original\nAcadian occupants, or built temporary cabins. This was the beginning of\nthe settlement of Fredericton, which four years later became the\npolitical capital on account of its central position, its greater\nsecurity in time of war, and its location on the land route to Quebec.\nMany of the people spent their first winter in log-huts, bark camps, and\ntents covered with spruce, or rendered habitable only by the heavy banks\nof snow which were piled against them. A number of persons died through\nexposure, and "strong, proud men"--to quote the words of one who lived\nin those sorrowful days--"wept like children and lay down in their\nsnow-bound tents to die."
A small number of loyal refugees had found their way to the valley of\nthe St. Lawrence as early as 1778, and obtained employment in the\nregiments organised under Sir John Johnson and others. It was not until\n1783 and 1784 that the large proportion of the exiles came to Western\nCanada. They settled chiefly on the northern banks of the St. Lawrence,\nin what are now the counties of Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas, Grenville,\nLeeds, Frontenac, Addington, Lennox, Hastings and Prince Edward, where\ntheir descendants have acquired wealth and positions of honour and\ntrust. The first township laid out in Upper Canada, now Ontario, was\nKingston. The beautiful Bay of Quinté is surrounded by a country full of\nthe memories of this people, and the same is true of the picturesque\ndistrict of Niagara.
Among the Loyalists of Canada must also be honourably mentioned Joseph Brant\n(Thayendanega), the astute and courageous chief of the Mohawks,\nthe bravest nation of the Iroquois confederacy, who fought on the side\nof England during the war. At its close he and his people settled in\nCanada, where they received large grants from the government, some in a\ntownship by the Bay of Quinté, which still bears the Indian title of the\ngreat warrior, and the majority on the Grand River, where a beautiful\ncity and county perpetuate the memory of this loyal subject of the\nBritish crown. The first Anglican church built in Upper Canada was that\nof the Mohawks, near Brantford, and here the church bell first broke the\nsilence of the illimitable forest.
The difficulties which the Upper Canadian immigrants had to undergo\nbefore reaching their destination were much greater than was the case\nwith the people who went direct in ships from American ports to Halifax\nand other places on the Atlantic coast. The former had to make toilsome\njourneys by land, or by bateaux and canoes up the St. Lawrence, the\nRichelieu, the Genesee, and other streams which gave access from the\ninterior of the United States to the new Canadian land. The British\ngovernment did its best to supply the wants of the population suddenly\nthrown upon its charitable care, but, despite all that could be done for\nthem in the way of food and means of fighting the wilderness, they\nsuffered naturally a great deal of hardship. The most influential\nimmigration found its way to the maritime provinces, where many received\ncongenial employment and adequate salaries in the new government of New\nBrunswick. Many others, with the wrecks of their fortunes or the\npecuniary aid granted them by the British government, were able to make\ncomfortable homes and cultivate estates in the valleys of the St. John\nand Annapolis, and in other fertile parts of the lower provinces. Of the\nlarge population that founded Shelburne a few returned to the United\nStates, but the greater number scattered all over the provinces. The\nsettlers in Upper Canada had to suffer many trials for years after their\narrival, and especially in a year of famine, when large numbers had to\ndepend on wild fruits and roots. Indeed, had it not been for the fish\nand game which were found in some, but not in all, places, starvation\nand death would have been the lot of many hundreds of helpless people.
Many of the refugees could trace their descent to the early immigration\nthat founded the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. Some were\nconnected with the Cavalier and Church families of Virginia. Others were\nof the blood of persecuted Huguenots and German Protestants from the\nRhenish or Lower Palatinate. Not a few were Highland Scotchmen, who had\nbeen followers of the Stuarts, and yet fought for King George and the\nBritish connection during the American revolution. Among the number were\nnotable Anglican clergymen, eminent judges and lawyers, and probably one\nhundred graduates of Harvard, Yale, King's, Pennsylvania, and William\nand Mary Colleges. In the records of industrial enterprise, of social\nand intellectual progress, of political development for a hundred\nyears, we find the names of many eminent men, sprung from these people,\nto whom Canada owes a deep debt of gratitude for the services they\nrendered her in the most critical period of her chequered history.
Further reading
\n*Christopher Moore; "The Loyalists: Revolution, Exile, Settlement"; 1984, ISBN 0771060939.\n*W. Stewart Wallace; "The United Empire Loyalists: A Chronicle of the Great Migration"; Volume 13 of the "Chronicles of Canada", (32 volumes ); 1914, Toronto.\nExternal Links
\n*The United Empire Loyalists of Canada - fraternal association for descendants of Loyalists\n*Example of Loyalist claim from New York state\n*E-text of Wallace's Chronicle at Project Gutenberg\nCategory:Canadian history
