The fate of the Loyalists
First in a series looking at the impact of the Loyalists on Canada and the world
Loyalists have been poorly treated by American historians. Gary Nash, writing in First City, Philadelphia and the Forging of Historical Memory, linked the treatment partly to the lack of archival sources in the main American museums and repositories. In simplest terms, the important archival records of Loyalists were either carried off with them to their new homes, or were destroyed by the Patriots who took over their residences.
The Trent Valley Archives has been using the motto, “Without archives there is no history.” This was inspired by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s study of Martha Ballard. Martha Ballard would have been unknown except for a one-line newspaper obituary, except that she kept a diary that survived, and an historian (namely Ulrich) took the time to give context to the diary.
Martha Ballard lived near what is now Augusta, Maine, and between 1785 and 1812 as a midwife delivered over 1,000 babies, and had only five deaths. Her house was the hive of domestic and female activity. Her husband ran a lumber mill and later was a surveyor, and his footprint is everywhere. She ran, effectively a bed and breakfast for his customers; her living room was used for most of the 30 odd steps in producing homespun linen; and weaving projects were done from her home. When Ulrich tracked her comings and goings she came into contact with more people, and went into more people’s homes, than any of the men who were covered in the local histories.
Her niece, a celebrated American nurse, deposited Martha Ballard’s diary in the Maine State Archives in 1925, and it was dismissed by those who saw it; Martha never mentioned when George Washington came to town! But in the hands of Ulrich, the diary was a goldmine for learning about the “invisible economy” and about the busy and interconnected lives of women and families.
Gary Nash observed (89), “Textbooks have usually taught us that the loyalists who remained faithful to the English crown were too selfish or timid to join the revolutionaries. In truth, the loyalists were a mixed group with widely varying motives.” During the 1760s and 1770s, there were many political ideas, some of which prefigure what Canada did in 1791 and 1867. Many were Loyalists because, such as Anglican clergy and Royal officials, they had sworn oaths of allegiance. Anglicans prayed for the Royal Family in their services. Some were forced to assist freely or otherwise the armies that traipsed through their communities.
When I was teaching American history, Loyalists were considered those who were forced to make decisions either by conviction or by circumstance. I tended to prefer the term “American Tory” as a political description.
The classic conception, which was expressed by John Adams, later the second president of the United States, was that Americans divided one third/one third/one third. One third opposed the revolution, one third favoured it, and one third hoped they could ignore it.
Gary Nash concluded, “Philadelphia’s collecting institutions therefore have little to show that would restore memory about the city’s loyalists, except some materials relating to members of the Society of Friends. Many loyalists, such as William Franklin, (Joseph) Galloway, and (the Reverend Jacob) Duche, voluntarily left for England or Nova Scotia or were driven out, talking their papers with them. The descendants of other loyalists who eventually returned had little reason in the nineteenth century to preserve the papers of parents and grandparents who refused to support the American cause. Nor were Philadelphia’s collectors much interested in ferreting out archival materials or spending money on them to preserve a record of documenting who chose the losing side in the American Revolution.” (89-90)
Those who supported the Revolution believed they were supporting “the glorious cause.” American historians wrote about the winners.
There has been a resurgence of interest in the history of Loyalists, and the “Spirit of 1783.” In this view, the Loyalists were not the losing side; they were the foundation for a second British Empire, that flourished over the next century: the boast was correctly, that the sun never set on the British Empire.
The distinction that resonated with me was that the American Revolution was about “liberty” while the opposition was about liberties. The first led to the idea that the rule of the majority should prevail; the second believed that people’s differences should be respected.
Some historians have written about the Age of Revolution, in which the English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1775-1783, and the French Revolution of 17891815 had a continuity. The rights of individuals were expressed in the French calling cry, “Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite.”
The Second British Empire, as it has sometimes been called, was characterized by diversity and by shared community values. The Loyalists were part of that definition. They were not losers, as treated by earlier American historians, but vanguards of a new world in which the Loyalist experience was crucial. The new empire had to respect diversity, the rights of minorities, liberties and the importance of loyalty.
We need to distinguish between Loyalists and Loyalist Emigres. Those who were forced to leave the Thirteen Colonies were Loyalist emigrants. The emigration of 70,000 people from the land they called home was huge by historical standards. The number was smaller than those displaced by the French Revolution, but accounted for a larger proportion of the total population. The emigration was remarkably diverse as well. It included all economic levels, large groups, such as Anglicans, several Indian nations, free Blacks, slaves and others.
The dispersal of Loyalist emigrants was very widespread. Many came to Nova Scotia, Quebec and Upper Canada. Still others went to Jamaica and elsewhere in the Caribbean. Some, especially those with the best political connections, went to England. Within 20 years some had gone to Africa, notably Sierra Leone, and to India, especially in connection with the East India Company. The commercial company was by 1783 seen as exercising governmental powers, exercising powers that were only implicit in their charters. The reality would soon match the 19th century boast that the “Sun never set on the British Empire.”
Canadian historians and Loyalist descendants have tended to focus on those who came to Canada. This has advantages, and there are sources that give solid foundations for this approach: the papers of Loyalists in archives in Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Halifax and elsewhere. And the Loyalist Claims, which were in England have been transcribed and microfilmed, and used. But the national boundary approach also tends to focus on Loyalists as losers rather than as builders. Partly, the contexts are too narrow geographically and chronologically. What, and how, do we decide is significant against which to judge the documents we have found?
Both the Loyalist Emigres and Loyalists survived a brutal war, but they also built a fresh legacy. Elwood H. Jones, Archivist, Trent Valley Archives, can be reached at Elwood@trentvalleyarchives.com