Follow by Email

Saturday, August 12, 2017

"In Addition to Disarming Them...Their Children Should Be Taken as Hostages.” - The Loyalist Experience in 1775 Albany County

By 1775, the seeds of rebellion had seeped into New York’s Albany County. Although initially slow to respond, many Albany County residents ultimately turned against their Tory neighbors. On May 3, 1775, the Albany Committee of Correspondence voted “ That Mess- Abraham Cuyler and Hendrick Wendell be a Committee to apply to Mr Dirck Ten Broeck for two hundred Stand of small Arms of the Parcel he is Possessed of, and when they are procured to put such of them as require it in proper Hands to be prepared and made fit for immediate Service. From the present state and Turbulance of the County . . . From the information of Col. Johnson respecting the Canadians and on Account of the great uneasiness of the Inhabitants, on these Occasions We conceive it prudent and advisable to have a Strict and Strong Watch well-Armed and under proper Discipline, and the Corporation declining to undertake the same.”

Almost immediately, armed night watches roamed the streets of Albany, the county seat, in an attempt to intimidate those loyal to the King and British government. Organized “committees” disrupted meetings held in Albany’s town hall between the Tory leaning mayor and his aldermen. Local businessmen with questionable loyalties, including the prominent Richard Cartwright, were brutally assaulted and imprisoned. Tories who openly criticized or challenged the rebels’ motives were quickly arrested and sent off to prison. Newspapers and print shops advocating loyalty to the King were immediately suppressed and shut down.

Coordinating the rebel’s efforts were a group of men known locally as the “Tory Committee”. The Tory Committee’s primary charge was to keep in check those loyal to the crown. Of particular interest to the committee was the Scottish population that resided throughout Albany County. The Scottish settlers were known for their fierce loyalty to the Crown. But devotion to the King was not the sole reason for hostility towards the Scots by the Tory Committee and its supporters. Many Scottish settlers were of either Presbyterian or Catholic faiths. Following the aftermath of the French and Indian Wars, the concept of Roman Catholics and Presbyterians openly practicing their religious beliefs deeply concerned their Congregationalist and Anglican neighbors. Worse yet, many Scottish ministers and priests openly welcomed black slaves and local Mohawks into their parishes and churches. This alarmed many local residents, especially those who either owned slaves themselves or lived within striking range of the Mohawk and Oneida tribes. To them, the recruitment of these two classes would most likely lead to either a slave revolt or Indian uprising. As members of the New York Provincial Congress warned early in the American Revolution, “the indulgence and establishment of Popery all along the interior confines of the Protestant Colonies tends not only to obstruct their growth, but to weaken their security.”

Economic competition also motivated the actions of the Tory Committee. As the French and Indian War drew to a close, Scottish sutlers who followed and supplied the Highland regiments established their own businesses throughout Albany County. With a readily accessible customer base and network, many Scottish businessmen easily outpaced their “patriot” counterparts. With the rise in tensions between those loyal to Crown policy and those who were not, the Tory Committee seized upon an opportunity to crush their economic competitors. Merchants such as James and Alexander Robertson were all but helpless as mobs incited by the Tory Committee first shut down their print shop, then their newspaper, the Albany Gazette. Many other merchants were physically jailed merely for suspicion of being a Tory.

As the war progressed, many members of the patriot faction believed those loyal to the Crown were internal foes who needed to be carefully contained. In an effort to limit loyalist military and political influence, early in March of 1776, New York’s Committee of Safety perceived loyalist opposition to be so strong in certain counties, that they “advised that, in addition to disarming them [the Loyalists], their children should be taken as hostages.”

By the Fall of 1776, conditions in Albany County had deteriorated to the point that many Tories started to flee northward towards Canada so as to avoid continued persecution. Those who remained behind were subjected to increased scrutiny and repeated interrogation before committees charged with identifying and incarcerating those loyal to the King. On May 10, 1777, under intense questioning, a suspected Tory denied being a Tory so as to avoid incarceration. Unfortunately, his fate was sealed when refused to renounce his allegiance to the King. “One [man] protested he was no Tory, but was a man for the King”.

As William Bolts accurately predicted, “history abounds with instances of nations driven into madness by the cruelty of oppression; it is the singular situation of us at present that we have been made mad by an impatience of all legal restraint and wanton abuse of power.”

Monday, July 31, 2017

"Denied All Communications" - Newburyport Loyalist Henry Atkins

In the past, we at Historical Nerdery have discussed the various activities of “patriots” that hailed from Newburyport.  But what about the Loyalists from that town?  A quick review of the historical work The Loyalists of Massachusetts: Their Memorials, Petitions and Claims reveals there were five identified Loyalist families and individuals in a town of three thousand on the eve of the American Revolution.

One such individual was Henry Atkins.  Mr. Atkins was born in Boston and until 1772 clerked for the Secretary to the Commissioners of American Customs, Richard Reeve.  On May 1, 1772, he was appointed a “weigher and gauger of Customs at Newburyport.”  Prior to the construction of a custom house in 1835, there had been at least two previous custom houses located in Newburyport.  The first was owned and operated by the English government.  After the war, American custom officers occupied the building and remained there until the early 1820s.  Afterwards, custom officers moved to an abandoned brick store.

The position was a lucrative post and yielded Atkins an annual salary of £80. Unfortunately, Atkins was “openly in favor of Gt. Britain.”  As a result, on July 27, 1775, a Newburyport mob greeted him at the custom house. This “revolutionary party” blocked Atkins from performing his duties and demanded he renounce the policies of the  British government.  When he refused, Atkins was promptly arrested and confined to a local jail.  He remained incarcerated for over two months.  After appearing before the Newburyport Committee of Safety, he was released on bail and confined to his home and gardens.

When Burgoyne launched his invasion from Canada in 1777, Henry Atkins was again asked to renounce his allegiance to the Crown and take up arms against the British government.  When he refused, he was promptly arrested and thrown in jail again.  Shortly thereafter, Atkin’s son was also imprisoned for being a Loyalist

During both occasions of incarceration, Atkins was treated somewhat poorly by his jailers.  According to his cell mate, Captain Edward Barron of the 4th Regiment of Foot, the Loyalist was “denied all communications with friends by letter or otherwise and not suffered even to receive visits from his own children.”  

In April, 1778, Atkins and his son successfully escaped and eventually made their way to Halifax, Nova Scotia.  Somehow, Atkins was able to secure safe passage from Newburyport to Canada for the remainder of his family.  

Facing financial ruin, Henry and his son left Nova Scotia in 1780 and travelled to England to secure compensation for his losses during the American Revolution.  He took up residence in Walthamstow, England.  While there he was supported financially by his neighbor Henry Goldthwait.

The Newburyport Loyalist spent the next six years petitioning the English government for restitution.  Ultimately, his health began to deteriorate and on May 24, 1786 he died in England.  His son continued to petition the government for compensation.  In the end, the Atkins family was only paid a lump sum of £40.

Monday, July 17, 2017

"They Performed the Manual Exercise and Filings" - The Independent Marines Prepare for War.

When war with England appeared inevitable, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress looked to the colony’s militia to serve as its military arm. The origins of the Massachusetts militia can be traced back to the reign of Edward I, when Parliament enacted legislation decreeing that every freeman between the age of fifteen and sixty was to be available to preserve the peace within his own county or shire. In the towns where the freemen were located, they were organized into military units known, by the virtue of their periodic training, as “trained bands”. However, when Parliament, under the rule of Charles II, revised membership requirements, established payment protocols and appointed officers, trained bands became known as militias. By the 17th century, militias had become one of the cornerstones of English society. Thus, when Plimouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were founded, the establishment of the militia followed naturally. In both colonies, every man over sixteen automatically became a member. Musters were frequent and mandatory, and punishments were doled out for being absent or not properly equipped. The governor maintained the sole authority to activate the militia in the time of crisis. Each time a new town sprung up, a militia company was formed. As the town expanded, additional companies often were created. When counties were formed, the various town militias within the borders of each county were organized into regiments. The governor held the sole authority to activate the militia in the time of crisis. However, with the elimination of the French threat as a result of the French and Indian War, the need for a militia decreased significantly. After 1763, companies and regiments of Massachusetts militia rarely assembled to drill and as a result, were of little military value. By the eve of the Boston Tea Party, a militia muster was not viewed as a military gathering, but rather as a sort of town holiday offering an opportunity for families and friends to get together.

The Massachusetts Provincial Congress recognized it had to “consider what is necessary to be done for the defence and safety of the province.” Quickly, it resolved to wrest control of the militia away from the group of loyalist officers who commanded it. To achieve this, the Provincial Congress first ordered the militias to “meet forthwith and elect officers to command their respective companies; and that the officers so chosen assemble as soon as may be . . . and proceed to elect field officers.” Congress also recognized the need to revitalize and further strengthen the colony’s militia system as quickly as possible. On October 26, 1774, the delegates set into motion the formation of minute companies within Massachusetts. As part of its resolution, it declared "[The] field officers, so elected, forthwith [shall] endeavor to enlist one quarter, at the least, of the number of the respective companies, and form them into companies of fifty privates . . . who shall equip and hold themselves in readiness, on the shortest notice from the said Committee of Safety, to march to the place of rendezvous . . . said companies into battalions, to consist of nine companies each."

Emphasis on proper military skill and supply was strongly encouraged by the delegates. On the same day as the creation of minute companies, the Provincial Congress resolved "That, as the security of the lives, liberties and properties of the inhabitants of this province, depends under Providence, on their knowledge and skill in the art of military, and in their being properly and effectually armed and equipped, it is therefore recommended, that they immediately provide themselves therewith; that they use their utmost diligence to perfect themselves in military skill; and that, if any of the inhabitants are not provided with arms and ammunition according to law, and that if any town or district within the province is not provided with the full town stock of arms and ammunition . . . that the selectmen of such town or district take effectual care, without delay, to provide the same."

Methuen and Haverhill appear to be the first two towns in Northern Essex County to take steps towards preparation for war. Approximately twenty days before the resolutions of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, a Methuen Company of Militia declared "Whareas milartrary Exercise hath been much nelicked we the Subcrbers being the first comptrey in methuen Do Covenant and Engage To from our Bevels in to a Bodey in order to Lam the manual Exercise. To be Subegat To Such officers as the Comptrey shall chuse by Voat in all constutenel marsher according to our Chattaers . . .[list of sixty eight men] . . . the ferst Compyney in Methuen meat att Mr. Eben Carlton's in order To Chuse officers, and thay chose Lieut. Benj'm Hall Moder ator, they Chose Mr. James Jones for thar Capt. Mr. Ichobied Perkins furst Leut. Mr. James Wilson Sonent Leut. Mr. Sam Messer Ens. Mr. Nath Messer Jr. Clark for said Compyney."

In Haverhill, the town took the extraordinary step of establishing an artillery company:

Haverhill Sept, 5th. 1774. We the Subscribers, sensible of the importance of a well regulated Military Discipline, do hereby covenant and engage, to form ourselves into an Artillery Company at Haverhill according to the following Articles, — First, That there shall be four officers (viz) a Capt, Lieut, Ensign and Sergeant, who is to act as Clerk, To be chosen by a majority of the Company when met together, 2d. That we will meet together (on the first and third Mondays of September, October and November following, and on the first and third Mondays of the six Summer months annually till the Company shall agree - to dissolve the same) for the exercise of Arms and Evolutions, And that the role shall be called two hours before Sunset, and the Company shall be dismissed at Sunset N. B. If it be fowl weather the Day appointed, the Company shall meet the next fair Day — 3dly. Any one neglecting Due attendance shall be subject to a fine of eight pence, for the use of the Company; unless on a reasonable Pica; excused by the Company, 4thly. That no new member be admitted without the vote of the Company, That each member shall be Equiped with Arms, Accoutriments and Dress, according to Vote of Company, 6thily. That each member shall be supply'd with one Pound of Powder and Twenty Balls ; to be reviewed twice a year ; upon the Days of a chusing Officers, to commence the first Monday in October, from that time, the first Monday in May and August annually.

However, the first Massachusetts independent organization to possibly prepare for war with England may have been Newburyport’s Marine Society. Independent organizations in 18th Century New England were private social or charitable organizations that were often composed of males from the upper echelon of a community. The Newburyport Marine Society was founded on November 5, 1772 by ship captains and merchants.

In September, 1774, the members formed their own military unit known as the “Independent Marines”. As with the Haverhill artillery company and the Methuen militia, it appears the Independent Marines were drilling well over a month before the Massachusetts Provincial Congress issued its orders.

According to the September 21, 1774 edition of Essex Journal and Merrimack Packet, “Wednesday last the independent military society in this town met at the town-house compleat in arms and ammunition: After having been reviewed by their officers chosen by the society, they performed the manual exercise and filings, after which they marched to the Mason's arms tavern, and there performed the evolutions; and from thence marched to Mr. William Tell's (a gentleman that has always not only talked, but acted upon the genuine principles of patriotism), who had prepared an elegant entertainment for the society; after spending a few very agreeable hours with a number of gentlemen (whom Mr. 'Feel had invited) in conversation, repast, and drinking a number of loyal and patriotic toasts, the society again rally, march to the town-house, and after firing three vollies lodged their arms. All was conducted with the greatest order and good humour.”

What is also interesting about this particular account is it describes the Independent Marines as being properly armed and equipped. The term “compleat in arms and ammunition” suggests the Independent Marines attended the September drill with muskets, cartridge boxes, packs and edged weapons (either bayonets or swords). In otherwords, the Independent Marines were fully equipped for war.

This is highly unusual. In September, 1774, most Massachusetts towns and independent military companies had not yet adopted measures to properly supply or equip its minute and militia companies. Newburyport did not address the matter until October 21, 1774 when it resolved to put itself on a wartime footing. “Voted that all the Inhabitants of this Town be desired to furnish themselves with arms and ammunition according to Law, and that they have, also, Bayonets fixed to their Guns as soon as may be.” It would be months later that its military companies actually received bayonets and cartridge boxes.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

"To Prepare Reasons for Our Present Conduct" - Lexington's Reaction to the Townshend Acts

We at Historical Nerdery have to make a confession...we have a secret history nerd crush on Boston 1775. If you haven’t visited Mr. Bell’s blog, please do so. It contains everything and anything relevant to Colonial New England. In short, the site is simply amazing.

Late last week, Boston 1775 posted two articles about the passage of the Townshend Acts. Of course, this inspired us to look at how Lexington reacted to the passage of this economic program.

In 1767, England faced a financial crisis. To defray imperial expenses in the colonies, Charles Townshend, the impetuous Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whom it was said, “his mouth often outran his mind”, suggested a series of laws directed at raising revenue from the American colonies. The Townshend Acts, as they became known, provided for an American import tax on paper, painter’s lead, glass and tea. The acts also tightened custom policies and revived the vice-admiralty courts. Although a minority within the House of Commons opposed such a measure, the majority rationalized it would “raise colonial revenue, punish the colonists for their ill-behavior after the repeal of the Stamp Act, and exercise the rights to which Parliament laid claim in the Declaratory Act.”

Once again, Boston stood at the forefront of opposition. On October 28, 1767, the citizens resolved, at a town meeting, to oppose the acts by refusing to import English goods and to encourage American manufacture instead. Lexington followed Boston’s initiative. On December 28, 1767, Lexington “Voted unanimously, to concur with the town of Boston respecting importing and using foreign commodities, as mentioned in their votes, passed at their meeting on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1767.”

However, by 1768, Boston was once again resorting to violence to indicate its opposition to British policy. In March, rioters went to “Commissioner Burch’s home and with clubs assembled before his door a great part of the evening, and he was obliged to send away his wife and children by a back door.” Inspector William Woolton returned home one evening to find “4 men passing him, one with a stick or bludgeon in his hand accosted him saying, ‘Damn your Blood we will be at you to Morrow night.” The victims of the mob begged Governor Bernard to apply for military protection so the Townshend Acts could be enforced. The governor struggled with the decision, but ultimately applied to the king for troops. At the same time, however, British merchants pleaded with Parliament and the King to repeal the act before they were brought to financial ruin. Yet their pleas went unanswered. In 1768, Governor Bernard was ordered to dissolve the Massachusetts legislature, and two full regiments of British regulars were dispatched to Boston to protect the custom officials and help to enforce the Townsend Acts.

Lexington’s inhabitants reacted with dismay. On September 21, 1768, they assembled “to take into their serious consideration the distressed state of the Province at the present day, and to pass any vote thereto.” Isaac Bowman, William Reed, Esq., and Deacon James Stone were selected “to prepare reasons for our present conduct.”

After much consideration, the three men presented a series of resolves to the town. The resolves looked for precedent to the act passed by Parliament during the first year of the reign of William and Mary, settling the succession of the crown and declaring the rights and liberties of their subjects. In particular, they appealed to the Massachusetts Royal Charter, for the authority to forthrightly defend their rights as Englishmen. The residents of Lexington, through their resolves, argued that it was explicitly stated in the charter of Massachusetts that as inhabitants of the colony they possessed “Certain rights, Liberties & privileges therein Expressly mentioned: Among which it is Granted, Established and ordained That all and every ye Subjects of Them, their heirs and Successors, which Shall Go to inhabit within Sd Province & territory, & Every of their children which shall happen to be born there . . . Shall have & injoy all the Liberties and Immunities of free & Natural Subjects . . .as if they & every of them were Born within the Realm of England.”

As was the practice at this time, the people of Lexington acknowledged “their firm & unshaken allegiance to their alone rightful Sovereign King George the Third.” However, they went on to assert “[That] the freeholders & other Inhabitants of the Town of Lexington will, at the utmost peril of their Lives and Fortunes, take all Legal and Constitutional measures to Defend and maintain ye person, Family, Crown and Dignity of our Said Sovereign Lord, George ye Third, and all and Singular the Rights, Liberties, privileges and Immunities Granted in said Royal Charter as well as those which are Declared to be Belonging to us as British subjects, by Birthright as all others therein Specially mentioned.”

The resolves concluded by condemning as infringement of the Royal Charter both the policy of levying taxes without consent of the people of Massachusetts or their elected representative, and the quartering of troops in Boston. “Therefore, Voted as ye opinion of this Town, that levying money within this Province for the Use and Service of ye Crown in other manner than ye same is Granted by the Great and General Court or Assembly of this province is in violation of ye Said Royal Charter: and . . .the Raising & keeping a Standing Army among them . . . without their consent in person or by representatives of their own free Election, would be an Infringement of their Natural, Constitutional and Charter rights.”

The resolves of 1768 represented a departure from the town’s earlier position as stated during the Stamp Act crisis. Gone was the tone of deferential disagreement, along with the expressed desire to avoid the violence that had plagued Boston. No longer was the argument focused primarily on the economic impact of British taxation policies. Although stopping short of justifying a resort to arms, the 1768 resolves demonstrated the town’s unwavering devotion to their constitutional rights and its willingness to defend those liberties at all costs within legal bounds. The residents noticed the change in tone as well. The report was debated and read several times before it was finally accepted with a unanimous vote. Still, Lexington knew they had taken a momentous step and now could not turn back. At the conclusion of the town meeting, they voted “to keep a day of prayer on the occasion, and left to the Rev. Mr. Clarke to appoint the time.”

Following the Lexington resolves, the town also adopted a boycott of all British goods. Women organized spinning bees to decrease dependence on imports. As the Boston Gazette observed on August 31, 1769 “very early in the morning, the young Ladies of [Lexington], to the number of 45, assembled at the house of Mr. Daniel Harrington, with their Spinning Wheels, where they spent the day in the most pleasing satisfaction: and at night presented Mrs. Harrington with the spinning of 602 knots of linen and 346 knots of cotton. If any should be inclin’d to treat such assemblies or the publication of them in a contemptuous sneer as thinking them quite ludicrous, such persons would do well first to consider what would become of one of our (so much boasted) manufactures, on which we pretend the welfare our country is so much depending, if those of the fair sex should refuse to “lay their hands to the spindle” or be unwilling to “hold the distaff.”

Monday, July 3, 2017

"The Most Calm, Decent and Dispassionate Measures" - Lexington's Reaction to the Stamp Act Riots

Following the conclusion of the French and Indian War, England attempted to curb the financial burden created as part of its war time effort of the 1750s.  The government implemented a series of economic programs aimed at having those it considered to have benefited most by the successful conclusion of the war, the American colonies, share in the burden of debt.

The first two revenue raising measures that Great Britain imposed on her American colonies were the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765. The Sugar Act established tariffs on colonial trading and also attempted to curb the American practice of smuggling sugar and molasses from the West Indies by placing a three pence per gallon tax on foreign molasses. The act established a list of “enumerated goods” that could be shipped only to England, including lumber, and set forth procedures for the accounting, loading and unloading of cargo in port. Violations of the act were prosecuted in a vice admiralty court, where defendants would be denied the right to a jury trial and where the presumption was of guilt rather than innocence. The second revenue raising measure was the Stamp Act, which levied an unprecedented direct tax on almost every piece of public paper in the colonies. Newspapers, almanacs, deeds, wills, custom documents, even playing cards were among the many papers subjected to the tax. The Stamp Act went so far as to impose a tax upon tax receipts.

The Sugar and Stamp acts brought on an explosion of riots, boycotts and protests throughout the colonies, particularly in Massachusetts. At first, Massachusetts’ response was peaceful, with the inhabitants merely boycotting certain goods. However, resistance to the taxes soon became more violent. Under the guidance of Samuel Adams, Bostonians began a campaign of terror directed against those who supported the Stamp Act. It began on August 14, 1765 with an effigy of Andrew Oliver, the appointed stamp distributor for Massachusetts, being hung from a “liberty tree” in plain view by the “sons of liberty.” That evening, the Oliver’s luxurious home was burned to the ground. A chastened Oliver quickly resigned his commission. The following evening, incited by a rumor that he supported the Stamp Act, the home of Thomas Hutchinson, Lieutenant Governor of the colony, was surrounded by an unruly mob. When Hutchinson refused to accede to the demand that he come out and explain his position, the mob broke several windows and then dispersed. Two weeks later, on August 28, 1765, an even larger mob assembled and descended upon the homes of several individuals suspected of favoring the Stamp Act, including again that of the Lieutenant Governor. Hutchinson managed to evacuate his family to safety before the mob arrived. Then, as Hutchinson later described it, “the hellish crew fell upon my house with the rage of divels and in a moment with axes split down the door and entered. My son heard them cry ‘damn him he is upstairs we’ll have him.’ Some ran immediately as high as the top of the house, others filled the rooms below and cellars and others remained without the house to be employed there. I was obliged to retire thro yards and gardens to a house more remote where I remained until 4 o’clock by which time one of the best finished houses in the Province had nothing remaining but the bare walls and floors.”

The mob’s show of force had the desired effect. With Oliver’s resignation, the stamps could not be properly distributed. Additionally, no other stamp officer was willing to step forward to assume Oliver’s legal role. In short, Boston was crippled and could not enforce the act. The town standoff between Boston and the Crown continued through the fall and winter of 1765.

Lexington, being both close in proximity and tied economically to Boston, quickly became embroiled in the stamp crisis. A town meeting was held on October 21, 1765 to address the Stamp question, and determine what instructions should be given to William Reed, the representative of Lexington to the Massachusetts General Court. A committee was established, composed of the selectmen James Stone, Thaddeus Bowman, Robert Harrington, Benjamin Brown and Samuel Stone, Jr. Supervised by the Reverend Clarke, the committee drafted a series of instructions. Although stopping short of challenging Parliament’s right to pass laws regulating the American colonies, the instructions from Lexington did challenge the perceived results of the act:

"What of all most alarms Us is an Act Commonly Called the Stamp Act, the full Execution of which we Apprehend would divest us of our Most inestimable Charter Rights and Privileges, Rob us of our Character as Free and Natural Subjects, and of almost Everything we ought as a People hold Dear. Admitting that there was No Dispute as to the Right of Parliament to impose such an Act upon us, yet we Cannot forbear Complaining of it in itself considered, as unequal and unjust, and a Yoke too heavy for us to bear, And that not only as it falls heaviest on the poor, the widow and the fatherless and the orphan, not only will it embarrass the Trade and Business of this infant country . . . But more especially . . . it will quickly drein the Country of little Cash remaining in it, Strip Multitudes of their Property and reduce them to Poverty."

The committee further asserted that the act was in violation of the basic rights and liberties guaranteed to them as Englishmen, an opinion shared by many of the residents of Massachusetts. The prevailing view in Massachusetts during this crisis was that the power to tax rested not with Parliament, but with the colony’s General Court. Invoking the colony’s Royal Charter and the right to self-government guaranteed therein, the committee declared

"We humbly conceive this Act to be directly repugnant to those Rights and Privileges granted to us in our Charter, which we always hold sacred, as confirmed to us by the Royal word and Seal, and as frequently recognized by our Sovereign and the Parliament of Great Britain, wherein it is expressly granted to us and to our children--- That We shall have and enjoy all Liberties and Immunities of Free and Natural Subjects, within any of His Majesty’s Dominions, to all intents, and . . . Further, that the Full Power and Authority to impose and levy proportionable and reasonable Taxes, upon the Estates and Persons of all the Inhabitants within the Province, for the Support and Defense of His Majesty’s Government, are granted to the [Massachusetts] General Court or Assembly thereof . . . But by this Act a Tax, ---Yea, a heavy Tax, is imposed, Not only without and beside the Authority of Said General Court, in which this power, (which has never been forfeited nor be given up) is Said to be Fully and exclusively lodged; But also directly in opposition to an essential Right or Privilege of Free and Natural Subjects of Great Britain, who look upon it as their Darling and Constitutional Right never to be Taxed but by their own Consent, in Person or by their Representatives."

The resolution also chastised Parliament for its decision to eliminate the right to a jury trial by transferring prosecutions to admiralty courts. “By this Act we are most deeply affected as hereby we are debarred of being tried by juries in case of any breach or supposed breach of it, - a right which, until now, we have held in common with our brethren in England . . . This we apprehend will open a door to numberless evils which time only can discover.”

Yet, Lexington was not Boston. The citizens of the small dairy town rejected the use of violence and rioting. The resolutions even went to great lengths to “earnestly recommend . . . the most calm, decent and dispassionate measures for our open, explicit and resolute assertion and vindication of our charter rights and liberties . . . We take it for granted, therefore, that you will carefully avoid all unaccustomed and unconstitutional grants, which will not only add to the present burden, but make such precedents as will be attended with consequences which may prove greatly to the disadvantage of the public.”

With the riots receiving widespread coverage in London newspapers coupled with the successful boycott program undertaken by New York, Philadelphia and Boston, England finally yielded. Realizing the Stamp and Sugar Acts could never be enforced in America, the acts were repealed on March 4, 1766. However, before striking the laws, Parliament announced the Declaratory Act of 1766, which emphasized its authority to legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever.

Friday, June 23, 2017

"Purest Principles of Loyalty to My Late Sovereign" - Why Loyalists Remained Faithful to the Crown

Despite popular belief most loyalists did not support the crown out of blind loyalty or a misguided sense of patriotism. Instead, most chose to remain loyal due to a variety of personal, societal and religious principles. For some, religious teachings demanded loyalty to the Crown. For others, economic opportunity guided fealty to King George. For more than a few, cultural beliefs dictated support of the British government. Yet regardless of their respective motivations, the American loyalists found themselves quickly at odds with their “patriot” counterparts.

One guiding principle which influenced Tories to remain loyal to the Crown was religious beliefs. Regardless of religious affiliation, many loyalists followed interpretations of the bible and religious teachings that required solemn allegiance to the Crown. For Anglicans, many ministers firmly believed they were bound by oath to be loyal to the king. The Reverend Benjamin Pickman insisted he had to remain loyal out of the “purest Principles of Loyalty to my late Sovereign”. Fellow minister John Amory refused to support the American cause because: “ I could not with a quiet conscience...take an Oath that I would bear Arms against the King of Great Britain to whom I had already sworn Allegiance.” 

Likewise, not all Congregationalists supported the revolutionary rhetoric that was frequently espoused from the pulpit in New England. Isaac Smith justified his loyalty to the crown upon religious principles. He argued his position at Harvard and his profession as Congregational minister forbade him to be disobedient to his king or Parliament, because they obliged him to “liberal enquiry.”

Sandemanians, a pacifist sect of Congregationalists, believed that the bible commanded absolute loyalty to the Crown. Samuel Pike, a prominent Sandemanian, personified this belief when he declared in 1766 that every Christian must be a loyal subject to civil authority, even if that ruler was tyrannical. In turn, many Sandemanians became outspoken critics of the American cause and quickly became embroiled in the political crisis of the 1760s and early 1770s. The Sandemanians were the first to brand the Sons of Liberty and other political organizations as traitors to the Crown. Sandemanian minister Colburn Barrell declared that the Boston Massacre was the direct result of treasonous Congregationalist ministers who defied the laws of the land.

Roman Catholics, often seen as the scourge of the British Empire, quickly found themselves being forced to side with the Crown. Following the aftermath of the French and Indian Wars, many Catholic priests who resided in the upper regions of New York Colony openly welcomed black slaves and local Mohawks into their parishes and churches. With the passage of the Quebec Act of 1774, the practice of the Catholic faith was no longer subject to restrictions in certain regions of North America. The concept of Roman Catholics openly practicing their religious beliefs in New York, let alone with slaves and “savages”, deeply concerned their Congregationalist and Anglican neighbors. Members of the New York Provincial Congress quickly warned, “the indulgence and establishment of Popery all along the interior confines of the Protestant Colonies tends not only to obstruct their growth, but to weaken their security.”

Yet religious principles were not the only motivating factor to remain loyal to the crown. Often, economic dependency and patronage dictated one’s loyalty. Political appointees like William Woolton, Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver naturally sided with the British government because their respective colonial posts ensured potential profit. For many merchants, siding with the rebel mobs almost guaranteed financial ruin. Joseph Hooper, also known as “King Hooper”, of Marblehead was heavily dependent on trade with England. John Amory feared economic losses if he ended his business relationships with England. Amory was among the merchants who protested against the “Solemn League and Covenant of 1774,” suspending all commercial business with Great Britain. A business trip to England, which he coincidentally made during the Battle of Lexington, branded him a “Tory” in the eyes of his countrymen.

However, loyalty to the Crown so as to preserve economic profit was not limited to wealthy businessmen. Many tenant farmers of Albany, Ulster and Tryon Counties, New York were heavily dependent upon their loyalist land lords for continued economic success. In short, if rebel policies and practices drove their masters to financial ruin, economic destruction would surely follow for the tenants as well.

Likewise, economic opportunity in the form of recruitment bounties attracted many to the loyalist cause. Bounties were offered to prospective recruits; however, more important was the promise of freehold land. As early as 1775 recruiters for the Royal Highland Emigrants, a corps of loyalist Scot Highlanders, promised 200 acres of land to prospective soldiers. In March 1777 the governor of Quebec promised loyalists who “shall continue to serve His Majesty until the rebellion is suppressed and peace restored ... His Majesty's bounty of 200 acres of land.” In May 1781, when recruiting was more difficult, recruits were promised the same land after only three years of service and were given six guineas for enlisting. Recruiters in Bergen County, New Jersey, were even more generous, promising 200 acres of land for each adult male, 100 acres for his wife, and fifty acres for each child. Promises of land were also made by loyalist officers. Ebenezer Jessup, lieutenant-colonel of the King's Loyal Americans and a large landowner, pledged 24,000 acres of his land to those who “would serve faithfully during the War ... and 20,000 more to such of my officers as shuld merit the same by their good conduct.” 

A desire for public safety and order also influenced many colonists who remained loyal to the Crown. Looking back at the origins of the American Revolution, key players such as Jonathan Sewall viewed the original conflict not with the Stamp Act Crisis or the attempt by the British government to collect on its debt from the French Wars. Instead, many loyalists saw the Writ of Assistance case as the ignition of conflict. To many loyal to the Crown, the Writ of Assistance case was viewed as an attempt by ambitious politicians to overthrow the political establishment and replace it with a lawless or populist mob.

Most loyalists detested the mob rule that spread from Boston and New York City to the countryside and abhorred the lack of order. As tensions grew between the colonies and England, many colonists attempted to remain neutral. However, as radicals seized power, neutrality became impossible. Dr. William Paine gave up his neutrality and declared himself a loyalist after he experienced "too many abuses" and "insults" from Patriots. Samuel Curwen, Judge of Admiralty, complained Whig “tempers get more and more soured and malevolent against all moderate men, whom they see fit to reproach as enemies of their country by the name of Tories, among whom I am unhappily (although unjustly) ranked.” The Reverend Samuel Seabury of Westchester, New York, lashed out at the patriot mobs who routinely and illegally entered and searched loyalist homes:

Do as you please: If you like it better, choose your Committee, or suffer it to be
Chosen by half a dozen Fools in your neighborhood – open your doors to them
let them examine your tea canisters, and molasses-jugs, and your wives and 
daughters pettycoats – bow and cringe and tremble and quake – fall down and 
worship our sovereign Lord the Mob . . . and shall my house be entered into 
and my mode of living enquired into, by a domineering Committee-man? Before
I submit I will die, live you and be slaves.

For many loyalists in the New York region, especially those of Scottish descent, loyalty to the Crown was determined by cultural beliefs. Following the conclusion of the French and Indian War, many Scottish veterans from the 42nd, 77th, and 78th Regiments settled in the Albany area. Almost immediately, these newcomers clashed with their Dutch neighbors who sided with the rebels. In a society where clan ties were often paramount, many Scottish residents in the Albany area viewed King George III as their Laird or clan chieftain. As a result, most refused to sign “association” documents or loyalty oaths put forth by the Tory Committee due to the fact such documents were viewed as breaking an oath of allegiance to the King. As Captain Alexander McDonald, formerly of the 77th Regiment, warned “I am determined to be true to the trust reposed in me and discharge my duty with honour . . . as long as I live.”

Finally, for those colonists who attempted to remain neutral or initially sided with the “patriot” cause, the Declaration of Independence instead drove many individuals over to the side of the Crown. Seen as either a radical document or an extreme reaction to the dispute with the Crown, men such as Justus Sherwood, renounced their affiliation with the American cause and took up arms for the King.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Ale Flip Recipe

Happy Father's Day!

Nothing says "I love you dad" like plying him with Ale Flip! To make this 18th drink that was extremely popular in Newburyport, you'll need:

Boston shaker or 2 pint glasses
1 1/2 fl. oz. (3 tablespoons) rum
1 tablespoon molasses
1 large egg
8 fl. oz. (1 cup) dark beer such as brown ale, porter, or stout
Freshly grated nutmeg for garnish

Pour the rum and molasses into one of the pint/shaker glasses. Crack the egg into the other glass and beat well with a fork. Warm the beer in a small saucepan over low heat just until it begins to froth and steam; don’t let it come to a boil.

Pour the beer into the glass filled with rum, then pour the egg into the beer. Continue to pour the drink back and forth between the pint glasses until smooth and well-blended, then transfer to a mug or other clean and heat-safe drinking glass.

Grate fresh nutmeg over the flip and serve immediately.