Were the Loyalists persecuted by thePatriots during the Revolutionary War?

Viewpoint: Yes. Patriot leaders used violence, intimidation, confiscation ofproperty, banishment, and political, economic, and social ostracism to perse-cute Loyalists.

Viewpoint: No. Although Patriots inflicted some violence against Loyalists, itwas isolated and brief. Indeed, following the war, many Loyalists returnedhome where they recovered lost property, collected debts, and moved inPatriot circles.

"A Tory," according to one Patriot, "is a thing whose head is in England,and its body in America, and its neck ought to be stretched." This colorfulquote illustrates the divisive nature of America's War of Independence (1775-1783) and the hostilities it generated between American Patriots and Loyal-ists. For this reason, among others, historians have correctly labeled theAmerican Revolution as the nation's first civil war. Although estimates on Loy-alist strength are imprecise, partly because so many Americans shifted theirallegiance depending on the fortunes of war, a substantial number of whiteAmericans (perhaps as many as one-fifth) remained loyal to Great Britain andactively opposed independence.

Interestingly, Loyalists and Patriots held to a similar political ideology.Most Loyalists, like their opposites, objected to parliamentary policies, partic-ularly that of taxation, and pushed for constitutional reform. They alsobelieved in the natural rights of man—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi-ness. However, the Loyalists, unlike the Patriots, were convinced that inde-pendence would destroy these rights by promoting anarchy.

Quickly, however, the revolutionary movement evolved from a politicalfight to a military one. Nearly fifty thousand Tories fought for the British causeduring the war; many more either served as spies and informers or providedfood and supplies to the British. In short, the Loyalists, despite their lack ofintercolonial unity and organization, posed a real threat to the American inde-pendence movement. At first, Patriot leaders tried to convert, or at least neu-tralize, the Loyalists through reason and social and economic pressure.When these mild measures failed, revolutionary governments passedharsher decrees that were often carried out by unmanageable mobs. FuelingPatriot vengeance against the Loyalists was their view of them as more thanjust enemies; they were traitors who did not deserve protection againstexcessive cruelties usually inflicted on formal military opponents.

However, it is important to place the Patriot treatment of Loyalists inboth a contemporary and an historical context. The Patriots were fighting awar with the mightiest military power in Europe; the Loyalists provided valu-able assistance to Britain in its attempt to crush the rebellion. Patriot leaderswere therefore justified in attacking and persecuting British supporters andsympathizers. One may only argue whether this persecution was relativelyharsh or lenient. Additionally, the Americans did not treat the Loyalists anymore severely than the British had treated the Scots after Culloden (1746) or

LOYALIST TREATMENT

188

the Irish after their 1798 uprising. In the final analysis, though, the severity and leniency of the treat-ment of Loyalists is in the eye of the beholder. Those Tories who were tarred and feathered, ban-ished, and had their property confiscated must have felt Patriot vengeance was unjust and cruel.On the other hand, Patriot leaders, many of whom would have received similar, if not harsher, treat-ment by the British had the United States lost the war, believed their attacks on American Loyalistswere deserved and necessary. Today, with the emotions surrounding this issue largely subsided,perhaps one can make a more accurate judgment regarding how fairly or unfairly the Patriotstreated the Loyalists.

Viewpoint:Yes. Patriot leaders used violence,intimidation, confiscation ofproperty, banishment, and political,economic, and social ostracism topersecute Loyalists.

On the evening of 19 September 1778 alarge party of Loyalist refugee families reachedthe safety of British lines along the northernreaches of Lake Champlain. Their leader was amerchant, innkeeper, and justice of the peacefrom Schenectady, New York. The twenty or sopeople under his charge had been evicted fromtheir homes by New York's Commissioners forDetecting and Defeating Conspiracies. Rebelbanishment proved the denouement in a seriesof indignities—economic boycott, intimidation,mob violence, arrest, imprisonment, and prop-erty forfeiture—meted out to Loyalists. Upon hisarrival at Fort St. John, the deportee leaderwrote a lengthy memorial to the governor ofQuebec describing his continued attempts toquell the insurrection. He purposely omitteddetails about his recent hardships because ofassurances that a wide circle of influential peoplehad knowledge of his many misfortunes.

The magistrate's conviction that informedcontemporaries were aware of Loyalist adversi-ties arising from their stalwart defense of Kingand country stands juxtaposed against revisionistattempts to mitigate republican oppression ofpolitical opponents during the American Revo-lution (1775-1783). Modern historians haveadvanced three deceptive arguments exculpatingPatriot leaders for their organized persecution ofLoyalists. First, they have blamed the victims.Colonists not marching in lockstep with the rev-olutionary agenda were labeled "Tories," a pejo-rative term alluding to those who believed in theroyal prerogative and the established Church,who were at odds with mainstream societybecause of their dependence upon a corrupt met-ropolitan administration. Second, historianshave obscured the enormity of the Patriot crimescommitted against Loyalists by reasoning thatthere were not many Crown sympathizers inAmerica. Finally, they stress the benevolence of

postwar state governments, arguing that the leg-islative lifting of sanctions against dissidentsproves that republican officeholders were lenientindividuals who were magnanimous in victory.Simplistic bromides, however, cannot alter thehistorical record nor minimize the fact thatintense persecution cowed many colonists intoneutrality and drove 100,000 Americans to newhomes in Canada, Nova Scotia, the West Indies,and the United Kingdom.

Contrary to popular belief, Loyalists werenot an elite fringe group since they reflected allelements of provincial society's diverse ethnic,economic, and social mix. A majority consideredthemselves fortunate to be subjects of a nationthat provided its inhabitants with unparalleledeconomic and religious freedom. While not allagreed with imperial fiats proceeding fromWhitehall, they refused to support revolutionarydesigns to break ties with a government that pro-vided so many benefits. It is important to realize,moreover, that their community identity as Brit-ons had been forged as an antithesis to the des-potic courts of the Bourbon and Habsburgdynasties. Such Manichaean dualism precluded athird alternative between these rival ideologies:the establishment of a successful New Worldrepublic independent from the old Europeanpolitical orders. Thus approximately 20 percentof white inhabitants, almost 480,000 people,intimated support for the royalist cause. Theirgreatest concentrations were located astride back-country borders, particularly in the South, aswell as in various pockets throughout New Yorkand New Jersey. To these calculations one mustalso add a substantial number of Amerindiangroups who feared rebel expropriations of theirlands, together with African American slavesfreed because of military service to the Crown.

The dividing line between opposing politi-cal camps slowly grew in the decade precedingthe exchange of gunfire at Lexington on 19 April1775. Initial public support for the revolution-ary cause was orchestrated by extralegal commit-tees of correspondence originally formed toprotest imperial revenue measures during themid 1760s. They were reconstituted by late 1772as precursors to the First Continental Congress,which endorsed a Continental Associationdesigned to boycott trade with Britain in Octo-

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 189

The Savages Let Loose;political cartoondepicting Patriot

brutalization of theLoyalists, late

eighteenth century(Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C.)

her 1774. Local revolutionaries created countycommittees to enforce the boycott, reprovingthose who purchased or consumed productsimported from Britain. Soon, other extralegalbodies were inquiring into more than just indi-vidual purchasing habits; they now required alladult males to sign manifestos pledging supportof Congress's activities while decrying the poli-cies of George III and his ministers. Such associ-ations, as the documents were called, rapidlybecame litmus tests of political allegiance. Fail-ure to endorse these affidavits inevitably drewthe ire of the local inquisition now operating as ashadow government parallel to the provinciallegislatures and judiciary.

Enforcement committees used a wide vari-ety of methods to ferret out and silence thoseperceived inimical to the Rebel cause. Naturally,community leaders were first targeted for vigi-lante justice by black shirts misnomered "sons ofliberty." Favorite coercive techniques includedtarring and feathering, carting, riding the rail, orbeatings, in conjunction with other acts of pub-lic humiliation. In Charles Town, South Caro-lina, for example, revolutionary leaders created apublic exhibition designed to excite the peopleagainst the local "King's men." To that end, theyconstructed a large, movable stage-like frame andfurnished it with effigies representing the Pope,Lords Grenville and North, and the Devil. Earlyone morning in April 1776, this "uncommon

spectacle" was placed in an active site betweenthe public market and St. Michael's Church. Alarge crowd soon gathered around the apparatus,wondering about its purpose. Their queries weresoon answered, for no sooner did a royal officialor an individual suspected of loyalist sentimentspass by, than the Pope immediately bowed withproportioned respect to them; the Devil at thesame moment hurled his dart at the Pope's head,causing the crowd to convulse with laughter. Thestationary effigies of Grenville and North, por-trayed as attendants of the Pope, drew jeers fromthe people for the oppressive acts against Ameri-cans that they had steered through Parliament.

Patriots also delivered messages to Loyalistsin much more violent ways; even lesser officialsand ordinary people were targets of Patriot ven-geance if they expressed any public distaste forthe de facto revolutionary government or failedto sign the associations. One unfortunate manwho unwisely denounced the Patriots wasGeorge Walker, the royal gunner at FortJohnson in Charles Town. Patriots there gaveWalker a "new suit of Cloathes" made of tar andfeathers for openly uttering the "most bittercurses and imprecations" against the Americanrebellion. Afterward a mob of about five hun-dred people, most of them newly recruited sol-diers, carted Walker through town for five hourswhile pelting him with rocks. The mob mademany stops during this cruel procession to

190 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

present the burned, bloodied, and nearly blindgunner to the home of every leading Tory as anexample of what awaited them if they opposedWhig authority in any way. In a final act ofsadism, the Patriots then pumped water on andinto Walker for an hour before throwing him offBeale's Wharf into the harbor. More fortunatedissidents were simply rounded up, broughtbefore tribunals, and held in custody until theyeither averred support for revolutionary actionsor posted substantial bonds to remain neutral.These arbitrary courts provided grist for theLoyalist press. The anonymous WestchesterFarmer could not help but remark, "if I must beenslaved, let it be by a KING at least, and not bya parcel of upstart lawless Committee-men. If Imust be devoured, let me be devoured by thejaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by ratsand vermin."

Trenchant criticism such as that leveled bythe Westchester Farmer made members of theAnglican communion special objects for suspi-cion since they acknowledged George III as tem-poral head of their denomination. They, in goodconscience, could not participate in activitiesundermining the King's authority that trans-gressed solemn vows of allegiance. Other Rebelinterference with church liturgy, such as censor-ing routine prayers for the royal family'swell-being or compelling participation in reli-gious exercises to support further politicalreforms, seemed equally iniquitous at a timewhen agitators still claimed to be only aggrievedsubjects. Dereliction of clerical duties on thesepublic occasions or any inimical words aboutCongressional proceedings spoken during thehomily often resulted in church closure, forfei-ture of salary, and rough treatment. Lay mem-bers also were forbidden to observe routinecelebrations marking the King's accession orbirthday. Patriot leaders forcefully quashed andarrested those participating in festivities indicat-ing persistent fealty to Augustan monarchs.

Failure of metropolitan officials to stop theinsurrection at its inception by a massive deploy-ment of regular regiments animated Patriots tobolder measures. Patriots confiscated propertybelonging to Loyalist merchants for use in theirgrowing military effort against the redcoats.Continental soldiers were billeted in the homesor taverns of known British sympathizers so thatthose residents bore the cost of maintainingtheir oppressors for months at a time. Men whorefused to take up arms against the King's Menby enlistment with Rebel militias faced severemonetary sanctions and confinement. Whenfinally paroled upon a promise of good behavior,these conscientious objectors were not allowedto return to former livelihoods unless they hadsworn allegiance to the new order. Financial pres-

sures of this magnitude brought many to heelsimply because they could not bear to see theirloved ones destitute.

Incorrigibles not converted by the horren-dous living conditions in overcrowded local jailswere often sent to detention centers deemedbeyond the reach of the British military. Prison-ers had to pay for their cartage to prison campsas well as for their food and that of the armedguards accompanying them. Those unable tobear these enormous expenses were forced tolabor for their upkeep. This internal exile wasrarely pleasant. Prisoners were bound byill-fitting shackles and exposed to populist ragein communities through which the chain gangspassed. One New Englander Patriot opined inthe local Connecticut Gazette, and the UniversalIntelligencer in 1776 that he would "rather suffera witch than a Tory to live." Connecticut's noto-rious Newgate prison was actually an abandonedmine shaft where Loyalists were kept fettered insubterranean caverns until they recanted orescaped by desperate flight.

The Declaration of Independence (1776)marked a watershed in the struggle betweenCrown and Congress, when inaugural state legis-latures mandated pledges of allegiance from allresidents. Neutrality was no longer an option bymid 1777 with new committees formed toremove all political dissidents. Inhabitants wererequired to publicly abjure the King and Parlia-ment and swear allegiance to the new republic.Those who failed to do so were considered ene-mies of the state by authorities and expelled toBritish lines. Family units, however, were notregarded as inviolate. Young men or those other-wise deemed capable of bearing arms, such asmale slaves, were kept to serve in the militia.Authorities also placed restrictions on theamount of portable chattel deportees could takewith them: only fourteen days of provisionstogether with anything they could load into twowagons. The greater part of a life's work-homes, farms, businesses, stock, and property-were sold by the Rebels at public auctions.

Scholarly attempts to deny Loyalist persecu-tion do so at the expense of the historical record.One cannot read through official archives, judi-cial evidence, personal journals, or eyewitnessaccounts without discovering testimony to thisseamier side of the American Revolution. Publicexhibitions of brutality in tandem with incarcera-tion and persistent economic duress were theforemost weapons used by agitators to grind fel-low subjects into submission. Nearly 380,000dissidents succumbed to their draconian meth-ods and signed oaths of allegiance to the newlycreated states in which they lived. Those 100,000who continued to oppose the revolutionary gov-ernments were eventually driven from their

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 191

homes into permanent exile, leaving propertyand some dependents behind to languish inenemy care. It is paradoxical that FoundingFathers who espoused the natural rights of mandenied those liberties to nearly 500,000 adher-ents of a proven constitutional monarchy.

-ALEXANDER CAMPBELL,UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO

Viewpoint:No. Although Patriots inflicted someviolence against Loyalists, it wasisolated and brief. Indeed, followingthe war, many Loyalists returnedhome where they recovered lostproperty, collected debts, andmoved in Patriot circles.

Shortly before and during the AmericanRevolution (1775-1783), colonists who did notsupport the struggle for independence were thetargets of occasional violent mob action andlegal restrictions. Patriot mobs occasionallyassaulted Loyalists in the streets and ransackedtheir homes, but more commonly, they boy-cotted their businesses and passed laws requiringall citizens to take an oath of allegiance. Thosewho refused the oath of allegiance faced impris-onment. Although courts sternly enforcedanti-Loyalist laws, they also frequently acceptedpetitions from Loyalists requesting leniency.And, as soon as hostilities ended, Loyalists andPatriots quickly reasserted family and friendshipties. Many Loyalists returned from their exiles inEngland and Canada to their former homes inAmerica, where they integrated themselves intothe new republican society.

Although spontaneous popular protestagainst Loyalists sometimes led to cruel assaults,prewar cultural differences were often a moreimportant cause for mistreatment than politicaldifferences. Captured by angry Patriot mobs,Tories were subjected to painful tarring and feath-ering or were made to take a rough "ride on a railhorse." Of course, such treatment was brutal, butit pales in comparison to the bloody Jacobin Ter-ror (1793-1794) of the French Revolution. InNew York, where the hostility between Patriotsand Loyalists was most bitter, only fifteen Loyal-ists were executed. There was also little violenceagainst Loyalists in the other Mid-Atlantic statesor in the settled areas of the South. New EnglandPatriots—pre-Revolutionary Boston mobs excluded—rarely physically attacked Loyalists. Often friendsand neighbors warned the intended target ofPatriot wrath, allowing them to flee to safety. For

example, in May 1775, Patriot leaders in CharlesTown, South Carolina, considered John Stuart,the superintendent of Indian affairs for theSouthern colonies, so "obnoxious and danger-ous" that they made plans to arrest him. Uponlearning of this scheme, Stuart fled from hisCharles Town sickbed (he was suffering frommalaria) to his Lady's Island plantation, barelyescaping the "fury of a merciless and ungovern-able Mob." Some people even intervened to stopmob attacks already under way. Further inhibit-ing excessive violence against Loyalists were offi-cial orders requiring militia to treat women andchildren properly. However, those Loyalists whohad been unpopular before the war were far morelikely to be stripped, tarred and feathered, andparaded through the streets. In Pennsylvania, forexample, the Revolution intensified traditionalhostility toward Quakers, whose pacifism irkedmany Patriot leaders. Indeed, Quakers weresometimes convicted of treason on flimsy evi-dence and executed.

Loyalists in the Southern backcountry alsoexperienced violent treatment. Family feuds, ban-ditry, and murder were a part of daily life on theSouthern frontier. Not surprisingly, a bitter, vio-lent, cruel civil war erupted there between Loyal-ist and Patriots. Technically, this fighting wasnot political terrorism but rather the general furyof an isolated, uncivilized culture unchecked byinstitutionalized authority. But in the more set-tled areas of the South, as well as in theMid-Atlantic and New England states, Loyalistswere subject to relatively mild penalties. Some-times Patriots boycotted Loyalists' businessesand ostracized them from patriotic social circles.Most of the time, however, communities toler-ated their disloyal members. On those occasionswhen Patriots went beyond verbal abuse, it wasoften in reaction to specific war-related events orwas focused on particular groups and individualsand not part of a general attack against Loyalists.For example, during the Stamp Act (1765) con-troversy, Boston Patriots tore down GovernorThomas Hutchinson's house but did not attackother royal officials.

Once fighting began, Loyalists who refusedto take an oath of allegiance to the state govern-ment lost their legal rights. They could not suefor debt, sell or buy land, own a gun, or holdpublic office. Punishment for violating any ofthese provisions included imprisonment, puni-tive taxation, confiscation of property, or ban-ishment. Still, prosecutors rarely asked forbanishment and confiscation of property, andcourts often hesitated to strictly enforce thelesser penalties. Virginia judges, for example,allowed Tories to escape imprisonment simplyby promising good behavior in the future.North Carolina jailed convicted Loyalists but

192 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

appointed committees to care for their wivesand children. Finally, the New Hampshire legis-lature generously offered Loyalists three monthsto leave the state.

One reason why Patriots treated Loyalistsleniently during the Revolution was that loyal-ism had been the traditional allegiance. Not until1776, when Congress declared American inde-pendence, were people forced to choose sides.This decision was not easy for many colonists,some of whom kept a foot in both camps in anattempt to "play it safe." Many who chose to jointhe Patriots could still understand why otherschose to remain loyal. Patriots did not regard loy-alism as a major threat because most Loyalistswere moderates who tended to be neutral andlacked a strong common ideology. Furthermore,community ties of kinship and friendshipseemed to be more important to ordinary peoplethan political ideology. Desire for communityharmony and sympathy for Loyalist views con-tributed to the Patriots' mild treatment of theTories. Revolutionary leaders had similar reasonsto be lenient. Although they threatened dissent-ers with harsh punishments in an attempt tofrighten them, they thought pardons were moreeffective in neutralizing the Tories.

Although states banished some Loyalistsand confiscated their estates, there were meansavailable that allowed them to keep their prop-erty. A successful method of preventing the gov-ernment from confiscating an estate was for ahusband to leave his wife or adult childrenbehind to protect the property. Although absen-tee estates were legally liable to confiscation,homes occupied by abandoned members of Loy-alist families were not confiscated. Loyalistsmight also petition the courts for clemency orrelief. Petitioners often received relief from con-fiscation by the courts or regained their propertyfrom a forgiving legislature. In 1776, for exam-ple, the New Jersey legislature allowed commis-sioners to seize and sell the property belongingto Loyalists who had fled to the British lines, butthe law also required the government to give theproceeds to those exiles who returned within ayear. After the war, other states showed similartolerance toward returning dissidents. Massachu-setts courts, for example, ruled that if an aban-doned estate was legally confiscated and soldduring the war, the previous owner could receivecompensation from the state.

Indeed, when the war ended most formerLoyalists were smoothly reintegrated into societyand lived peacefully in their communities as theyhad before the conflict. With the end of hostili-ties, law and order were reestablished, which sig-nificantly curtailed harassment of formerLoyalists. In fact, there was no broad hatredtoward those who had remained loyal to the

The following account describes the cruelty Patriots sometimes inflictedon recalcitrant Loyalists. It comes from a letter written by Ann Hulton ofBoston, $1 January 1774:

But the most shocking cruelty was exercised & fewnights ago, upon a poor old man, a tidesman, one Mal-colm. Hte fe wltft-him, he was awiTheres no law that knows a punishment for thecrimes beyond what this is of cruel torture. And thisinstance exceeds any other before it. He wasnaked, one of the severest cold nights this winter, hisbody covered all over with tar, then with feathers, his armdislocating in tearing off his cloaths. He was dragged in a

dubs wa'toala^ fwMttThey gave him *parts of the town. This spectacle of horror and sportivecruelty was exhibited for about five hours.

The unhappy wretch they say behaved with thegreatest while. Before hewas taken, he defended himself a long time against *numbers, and ttey ^demanded of him to curse his masters, the King, Gover-nor, eten wl«i#^^^^f^MW^ til t»*Cur$e ait tmteitf to*fht andput a rope about his neck, saying they would hang him.He said he wished they would, but they could not, forGod was above the Devil. The doctors say that it isimpossible this poor creature can live. They say his fleshcomes off his back in stakes.

It is the second time he has been tarredered and this la looked upon more to intimidate thejudges and others than a spite to the unhappy victim tho'they owe Mm a grudge for some things particularly..These few instances amongst many serve to shew the ,'

barbarism of that dareor will act to suppress the outrages. No person is secure.

SourceMnn Hu/fon, Letters of a Loyalist Lady, Being the Letters ofArwn* Hulton, Sister of Henry Hulton, Commissioner of Customs atBoston, 1767-1776 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,ivanifr ?&*•?&

Crown, which encouraged a surprising numberof exiled Loyalists to return home. Even Loyal-ists who had served in the British Army wereable to move back into their former residences.Some regained their confiscated property, whileothers collected old debts. Of course, a return tonormalcy varied from state to state. Returneesfound the most difficult situation in New York,where courts even refused petitions of formerLoyalists asking to return to the state. Not until1788 did the Empire State repeal all anti-Tory

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 193

CURSE ALL mAlTQRS!

is reckoned creasy, a quarrel was picked

afterwards taken and tarredfeathered. feathered.

feathered.

cart with thousands attending, some beating him with

him out of the cart, again.several severe whippings, at different

Intrepidity and fortitude all the

afterwards when under torture

cried,They brought him gallows

gallows and feath-

abject state of govetrnment and the licentiousness andthe times. There's no majestrate

legislation. Compared with contemporary Euro-pean civil struggles, however, American treat-ment of Loyalists was relatively lenient.Aristocrat refugees from the French Revolutiondid not even have the option of returning totheir home country.

In the early American Republic, returneeswere able to rebuild their lives. Heartily wel-comed and kindly received by old friends andfoes alike, former Loyalists quickly reassertedfamily and community ties. Some former Loyal-ists and their children not only moved in Patriotcircles but also participated in the political cul-ture. Former Loyalist Sylvester Gardiner, forexample, was chosen to give a Fourth of Julyspeech in Boston, while Thomas Brattle becamea founding member of the Massachusetts Histor-ical Society. Some Tories were also elected tolocal offices, even in the most rabidly anti-Loyaliststate of New York. As convivial, skillful, and stabi-lizing members of society, former Loyalists were socompletely integrated into post-Revolutionarysociety that when they died, they were not remem-bered as Tories but as educated, esteemed, benevo-lent, and patriotic citizens.

Although white Loyalists enjoyed lenienttreatment and a tolerant reception, black Loyal-ists, on the other hand, suffered a different expe-rience. The British granted freedom to thoseslaves who fought on their side, but racial dis-crimination was still as virulent as ever. Follow-ing the promise of freedom, many blackLoyalists left for Nova Scotia after the war. Incontrast to white Tories who settled in Canada,only a few former slaves were granted land. Aslandless laborers they lived in poverty.

After the Revolutionary War, Americanscould not have justified harsh treatment towardLoyalists who had not fled, because by remain-ing in the country they had passively signaledtheir acceptance of independence and the newpolitical system. If family and friendship ties hadbeen loosened by the conflict, they were reas-serted with the peace. Returnees moved comfort-ably into post-Revolutionary society becausethey often had skills, education, and capital nec-essary to rebuild the war-torn nation. Some lead-ers also feared that unfair treatment wouldtarnish the young republic's reputation. Kin andpatronage connections, additionally, made it dif-ficult for the courts to strictly enforce confisca-tion of estates and personal banishment. Forexample, former Whigs sometimes testified onbehalf of former Tories, arguing that friends orrelatives had been forced into the British Army.

Violent outbreaks against Loyalists wereshort and isolated, and their political sins werequickly forgiven by old friends and the new stategovernments. A humanitarian attitude, strongcommunity and kinship ties, and the moderate

character of the Loyalists led Americans to toler-ate their disloyal countrymen during the Revolu-tion and to welcome them home to a new diversenation after the war.

-STEPHANIE KERMES, BOSTON COLLEGE

References

Robert S. Allen, ed., The Loyal Americans: TheMilitary Role of the Loyalist Provincial Corpsand Their Settlement in British North Amer-ica, 1775-1784 (Ottawa: National Museumof Man/National Museums of Canada,1983).

Wallace Brown, The Good Americans: The Loyal-ists in the American Revolution (New York:Morrow, 1969).

Brown, The King's Friends: The Composition andMotives of the American Loyalist Claimants(Providence: Brown University Press, 1965).

Robert M. Calhoon, "Loyalism and Neutrality,"in Elackwell Encyclopedia of the American Rev-olution, edited by Jack P. Greene and Jack R.Pole (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Refer-ence, 1991), pp. 235-246.

Calhoon, The Loyalist Perception and Other Essays(Columbia: University of South CarolinaPress, 1989).

Calhoon, The Loyalists in Revolutionary America,1760-1781 (New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1973).

Calhoon, Timothy M. Barnes, and George A.Rawlyk, eds., Loyalists and Community inNorth America (Westport, Conn.: Green-wood Press, 1994).

Mary Louise Clifford, From Slavery to Freetown:Black Loyalists after the American Revolution(Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1999).

Peter Wilson Coldham, ed., American LoyalistClaims, Abstracted From the Public RecordOffice (Washington, B.C.: National Genea-logical Society, 1980).

Ann Gorman Condon, The Loyalist Dream forNew Brunswick: The Envy of the AmericanStates (Fredericton: New Ireland Press,1984).

Connecticut Gazette; and the Universal Intelli-gencer, volume 13, 30 August 1776.

Catherine S. Crary, The Price of Loyalty: ToryWritings from the Revolutionary Era (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1973).

Peter Force, ed., American Archives, Fifth Series,From the Declaration of Independence, July 4,1776, to the Definitive Treaty of Peace with

194 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Great Britain, September 3, 1783) 3 volumes(Washington, B.C.: St. Clair & Force,1848-1853).

Alexander Fraser, ed., Second Report of the Bureauof Archives for the Province of Ontario(Toronto: Legislative Assembly of Ontario,1904).

Mary Beacock Fryer, King's Men: The SoldierFounders of Ontario (Toronto: DundurnPress, 1980).

Harold B. Hancock, The Loyalists of Revolution-ary Delaware (Newark: University of Dela-ware Press, 1977).

Adele Hast, Loyalism in Revolutionary Virginia:The Norfolk Area and the Eastern Shore (AnnArbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1982).

Ronald Hoffman, Thad W. Tate, and Peter J.Albert, eds., An Uncivil War: The SouthernEackcountry during the American Revolution(Charlottesville: University Press of Vir-ginia, 1985).

Stephanie Kermes, '"I wish for nothing moreardently upon earth, than to see my friendsand country again': The Return of Massa-chusetts Loyalists," Historical Journal ofMassachusetts, (Winter 2002).

Keith Krawczynski, William Henry Drayton:South Carolina Revolutionary Patriot (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press,2001).

Robert Stansbury Lambert, South Carolina Loy-alists in the American Revolution (Columbia:University of South Carolina Press, 1987).

Hugo Prosper Learning, Hidden Americans:Maroons of Virginia and the Carolinas (NewYork: Garland, 1995).

Adrian Coulter Lieby, The Revolutionary War inthe Hackensack Valley: The Jersey Dutch andthe Neutral Ground, 1775-1783 (New Bruns-wick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962).

Neil MacKinnon, This Unfriendly Soil: The Loyal-ist Experience in Nova Scotia, 1783-1791(Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press,1986).

Hazel C. Mathews, The Mark of Honour(Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1965).

Christopher Moore, The Loyalists: Revolution,Exile, Settlement (Toronto: Macmillan,1984).

William H. Nelson, The American Tory (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1961).

Mary Beth Norton, The British-Americans: TheLoyalist Exiles in England, 1774-1789 (Bos-ton: Little, Brown, 1972).

Anne M. Ousterhout, A State Divided: Oppositionin Pennsylvania to the American Revolution(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1987).

Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalistsof the American Revolution (Westport,Conn.: Meckler, 1984).

Victor Hugo Paltsits, ed., Minutes of the Commis-sioners for Detecting and Defeating Conspira-cies in the State of New Tork: Albany CountySessions, 1778-1781, 3 volumes (Albany,N.Y.: Lyon, 1909-1910).

Janice Potter, The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideol-ogy in Colonial New York and Massachusetts(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1983).

Janice Potter-MacKinnon, While the Women OnlyWept: Loyalist Refugee Women (Montreal:McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993).

Philip Ranlet, The New Tork Loyalists (Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press, 1986).

Samuel Seabury, Letters of a Westchester Farmer,1774-1775, edited by Clarence H. Vance(White Plains, N.Y.: Westchester CountyHistorical Society, 1930).

Sheila L. Skemp, William Franklin: Son of aPatriot, Servant of a King (New York:Oxford University Press, 1990).

Paul H. Smith, Loyalists and Redcoats: A Study inBritish Revolutionary Policy (Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press, 1964).

Earle Thomas, The Three Faces of Molly Brant: ABiography (Kingston, Ont.: Quarry Press,1996).

Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Loyalists in theAmerican Revolution (New York & London:Macmillan, 1902).

James W. St. G. Walker, The Black Loyalists: TheSearch For a Promised Land in Nova Scotiaand Sierra Leone, 1783-1870 (London:Longman/ New York: Africana, 1976).

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 195