“Loyalist Trails” 2014-36: September 7, 2014

In this issue:
UELAC: Where Do We Go From Here? by Dave Laskey, UE
The Summer of 1778: A Loyalist in the Big Apple (Part 3), by Stephen Davidson
Benjamin Becraft UEL (Part 8), by Doug Massey
2015 Conference – “Loyalists Come West”: A Bit of Britain
Albany NY In the Seven Years War (Part 2), by Bill Glidden
Comment re: 8 Fast facts About Hessians
Where in the World?
War of 1812: Remembrance at the Old Burying Ground, Halifax
From the Twittersphere and Beyond
Additions to the Loyalist Directory
      + Land Grants in Adolphustown and Marysburgh


UELAC: Where Do We Go From Here? by Dave Laskey, UE

Well, folks, we’re now more than half way through our Association’s centennial year and from all accounts it has been a success. For me, such milestones usually prompt some reflection on what brought us to the milestone and, more importantly, some questions on what the future might hold.

I wasn’t around when the UELAC was formed and I can only guess at the visions and motives of the founders. I’m quite certain, however, that today’s Association is very different than what they envisaged. Just as the founders did not have the gift of clairvoyance, we cannot predict what the UELAC will look like in 2114 nor, indeed, whether it will survive. The best we can do is to develop plans and create structures that will, we hope, see us thriving in five or ten years.

Status Quo

All planning starts with some analysis of where we are today. Admittedly, my understanding of the problems in branches other than my own is limited. Is the situation in New Brunswick Branch symptomatic of an Association-wide malaise? I don’t know for certain but there must be some lessons to be learned.

NB Branch total membership (including Other Family members) has been around 165 since I joined in 2008. We typically lose about 30 members each year and gain a similar number of new members. The average age has held steady at 69 years, so the increase in age of the renewing cohort is being offset by the younger ages of new members and by the loss of our oldest members.

About two thirds of our members live outside our home province and are generally unable to participate fully in Branch activities. However, many of our NB members do not live within easy driving distance of Saint John – the hub of most activities. That means that the pool of members who can participate in Branch events and who might be able to take on jobs is quite limited.

Of course, if we could reduce our non-renewal rate the Branch would expand and we’d have more resources – human and financial – for projects. Past surveys in our Branch, current surveys in other genealogical organisations and anecdotal evidence tell us that many people fail to renew because they don’t believe they’re getting value for money. (That includes the people who join just long enough to get a UE certificate.)

For me, joining UELAC was prompted by the belief that I would gain access to genealogical experts and significant research resources to assist me in the process of discovering and documenting my origins. While I have found a few resources that have been of value I can’t say that joining UELAC has met my expectations. (However, there have been other things that have kept me engaged.)

So, to the extent that New Brunswick Branch is representative of the broader organisation, we are group of groups (i.e. branches) each struggling to attract and keep new members.

One more thing. We do not have the right to confer the UE designation on anybody. The right to append UE to our names is acquired at birth. We either have or we don’t have it. The best that UELAC can do is to state that a particular person has submitted proofs of descent from a Loyalist in accordance with a rigorous set of genealogical standards.

Quo Vadis?

This is the prescriptive section of my article – the section where I, in my infinite wisdom, outline my view of where we should go. As you will see, my prescription is relatively simple. There is a risk that some feathers may be ruffled but, as Admiral Farragut said, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”

First, we need to make it vastly easier for members to gain access to the vast treasure trove held in Dominion Office – all the past UE certificate applications. These applications contain an enormous amount of knowledge about Loyalists and their descendants but we don’t make it easy or cheap to look at them.

Accessibility could be greatly improved by storing all applications as digital images. Doing this on a go-forward basis is quite simple although the technical details are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say that we could develop and implement a digital solution within a few months and at low cost. However, converting all existing applications to a digital format is more problematic. The technology to handle the digitisation of microfilm and microfiche is readily available but we’ve never asked for an estimate of the cost of conversion. To put it differently, the job may be easy but expensive. That said, let’s get some quotes and try to move this file forward.

Second, we need to overcome our fears about privacy legislation. We ask applicants to authorise us to “publish” the information in their applications but seem to be paralysed by uncertainty about what that means. If needed, let’s get legal opinions. Let’s expand the application form’s authorisation section to make it even more specific. Let’s make sure that we conform to the privacy requirements of the province with the most stringent legislation and move on.

Of course, we have to respect the privacy of living persons and we also have to follow the wishes of applicants. If an applicant wants his/her entire application to be kept confidential, so be it. (As an aside, I have heard members say that there’s no way they would share their work with others. Since I joined UELAC so I could access and build on the work done by others and am very willing to share my research results with others, I admit to bewilderment and consternation in this area. To my way of thinking there’s no value in re-doing work that has already been nicely completed by somebody else. I’d rather devote my time to expanding our collective knowledge.)

Third, we should systematically and quickly update and expand the Loyalist Directory. Doug Grant does a great job of updating the Directory “as time permits” but the task, as I envisage it, is beyond any single person’s capabilities.

Could we not set up a country-wide project to handle this task? I suspect there are people in every branch who would be willing to devote time to such a project; I would, for one. I have proven Loyalist ancestors who are not listed, proven Loyalist ancestors whose listings are inaccurate, ancestors who are mistakenly listed as Loyalists and unproven Loyalist ancestors for whom I have lots of new information. (The last group will ultimately be proven in new UE certificate applications as I get around to them.)

Fourth, let’s break down some of the walls of secrecy that we’ve built over the years. Why do we so closely guard the access rights to the “Executive Information” section of our website? Relying on branch presidents to filter and relay information to their members is fraught with problems. During my tenure as president of NB Branch I was inconsistent in my dissemination of knowledge about Dominion concerns and I can’t imagine I was unique in that regard. The result for my branch was that many members were left feeling that they had no connection to the national organisation.

When I look at the contents of Executive Information I see nothing that should be shielded from the eyes of our members. That’s not to say that members will be deeply interested in the contents of Executive Information – most of that stuff is so arcane and obscure as to be meaningless to the casual observer – but it doesn’t need to be kept in the Tower of London with the Crown Jewels.

The solution, in my view, is to simply give all our members the right to look at Executive Information.


Clearly, my analysis of the problems facing our Association has not been exhaustive. By picking the issues that are near to my heart I have ignored other pressing issues. Equally, my prescription excludes other possible initiatives that could have wonderful outcomes for UELAC. That’s fine. This article is not intended to be the final word on the topic. Rather, it should be regarded as the opening statement in a long debate.

Ask yourself whether there’s any truth to what I’ve said. Think about other problems that drive you to distraction. Open your mind to new possibilities – new ways of doing things. Together let’s try to come up with a vision that will carry us forward for the next few years so that we can have a glimmer of hope about surviving for another century.

Need Your Input – Voice Your Opinion

Well, you’ve had a chance to read my article and you could be seething with frustration over my apparent inability to see and understand the true situation. Alternatively, you could be shouting “right on, somebody understands”. Or, you might be somewhere in between, thinking that there’s some truth in my article but that some things have been ignored and others have been over-emphasized.

Regardless of where you stand on the article itself, we’d like to hear from you. We crave your feedback, your comments and your suggestions and earnestly implore you to take a few minutes to send them to the following e-mail address: future@uelac.org

You’re free to say whatever you wish (so long as it’s publishable in a family publication) but we would really like your views on the following questions:

Are the problems highlighted in the article real?

If the problems actually exist do they really deserve to be solved? Are they sufficiently important?

Are there other problems that deserve our attention?

Should solving these other problems take precedence over the problems enunciated in the article?

Are the solutions outlined in the article practical and do-able?

Will the proposed solutions actually help to solve the identified problems?

What other approaches could be taken to tackle the identified problems?

What should be done to deal with other problems?

…Dave Laskey, on behalf of UELAC, future@uelac.org

The Summer of 1778: A Loyalist in the Big Apple (Part 3), by Stephen Davidson

The summer of 1778 had to have been the most memorable one in all of Louisa Wells’ life. Captured by a British ship just after evacuating South Carolina for England, Louisa was forced to stay in New York City until she and her fellow passengers could prove that they were loyalists and that their cargo should not be taken as a prize of war. During her two months on Manhattan Island, Louisa toured the city, escaped a disastrous fire, and survived the explosion of a ship loaded with gunpowder.

In the September of 1778, Louisa and her maid, Bella, were invited to stay with Colonel Archibald Hamilton and his wife Alice in nearby Flushing. Hamilton was the commandant of the Queens County Militia and an aide-de-camp to Governor Tryon. Known as a man of “opulent fortune”, he also had a reputation for having a bad temper. Nevertheless, Louisa would later note in her memoirs that “Never was I happier to see friends than this family of Mr. Hamilton’s”.

While New York City had not impressed the 22 year-old, the Hamiltons’ town did. “Flushing, for an American village is by no means despicable. It has a pretty little Episcopal Church and a Quakers’ Meeting House. A few Gentlemen’s Houses help to beautify it a little …This place is famous for having in its vicinage a Nursery of Fruit Trees, of almost every Climate; besides a pleasant Garden and Tea House for Strangers.”

Among her many experiences in Flushing, Louisa recorded that it was there that she had “learned to nurse”. Mrs. Hamilton’s brother, a young military officer, had suffered a fever for 27 days. When the family was worn out from tending him, Louisa “watched” for the first time in her life. “It was here I first saw the precautions necessary to prevent infection, by ventilating the sickroom and not swallowing the spittle whilst near the patient.”

Satisfying as her time at Innerwick may have been, Louisa was “anxious to see an end of {her} peregrinations in America”. One morning she looked out her window to see a small two-wheeled carriage driven by Mr. Hunter, a loyalist she had met in New York City. He had come to personally deliver a letter from Louisa’s uncle “desiring {her} immediate presence in town.” The long-awaited trial that would settle the fate of the Providence’s passengers and its cargo was about to get underway.

Louisa packed up her things and accompanied Hunter back to Manhattan. On the way through the town of Jamaica, she noticed some French naval officers who were prisoners of war. Prophetically, the young loyalist observed that “they would certainly carry home some of the mania of liberty to their own country.” In just eleven years’ time, the French Revolution and its reign of terror rocked the foundations of European society. Had some of that American revolutionary fervour journeyed back to France with those officers?

With no car radios or i-Pods to amuse them, Hunter and Louisa sang “Shepherds, I have Lost my Love” as their carriage sped them to New York City. Eight o’clock that evening reunited the pair with passengers from the Providence in the Lowthers’ parlour. Although the decision that would decide the fate of the cargo aboard their seized ship weighed heavily upon them, the stranded loyalists spent most of their energies on making plans for how they would proceed to England.

The day of their trial quickly followed. The attorney general for New York represented the captain of the Rose, the man who had seized the Providence in hope of keeping its cargo. The defence lawyer hired by the stranded passengers made his case the following day. Major Robert Bayard, the judge of the court of vice-admiralty, weighed the evidence. In the end, he was “fully convinced by the Characters of the Witnesses, who had been examined, that what we at first advanced was Truth. He was also sorry to find that so many undue methods had been used to keep back Justice … It is the decree of this Court that the ship Providence with her appurtenances. Cargo etc., be restored to their Original Owners”.

Finally, a journey that had begun in June in South Carolina could now continue. Louisa and her fellow passengers booked passage on the Mary & Charlotte, and within two weeks’ time were preparing to bid New York City goodbye. Although her memoir records that Louisa spent her last days “frolicking about in Town amongst the many cheerful young Friends and acquaintances {she} had made”, she was glad to leave the Big Apple. She concluded that her time in New York City had given her “a surfeit of everything on the Continent of America to the Northward of Charleston.”

Finally, on her 23rd birthday, the 17th of October 1778, Louisa Wells and her comrades boarded their ship at the lower end of Manhattan Island. It wasn’t the most memorable birthday; she spent most of it being seasick. The Mary & Charlotte joined a fleet of nearly a hundred ships off of Sandy Hook, and after a wait of two days, began to sail for England.

In her memoir, Louisa recorded her reflections on her three months of forced vacation in New York City. It helped to wile away the time as she waited to be reunited with her parents and her fiancé.

“During my solitary hours, I often indulged in the pleasing reveries of “future times”: — the happiness I should enjoy the next time I went to sea. A thousand reflections would crowd into my mind. The scenes of persecution, fatigue and trouble I had left in Carolina. The various accidents, mock Sieges, Skirmishes and battles which, I had been almost a spectator of at New York. The pleasing prospect I had of being, at the end of this Voyage, in a land of peace, liberty and plenty, used frequently to make the leaden foot of Time fly with Mercury’s Wings. To paint the first would take up too much of my precious time and paper, and my pen must have the veracity of that of an Evangelist before e’er I should be credited. Few people (on the Continent of America) who have cherished a spark of Loyalty in their breasts, but can bear ample testimony to these truths.”

To secure permission to reprint this article, email Stephen Davidson.

Benjamin Becraft UEL (Part 8), by Doug Massey

The hatred shown Joseph Brant and his men, including Benjamin, attests to the effectiveness of the guerrilla type war that was waged by Brant’s Volunteers, the Butler Rangers and many other loyalist and native groups and nations. Frequent were the instances in which individuals and even whole families in the outskirts of the settlements disappeared without any knowledge on the part of those who were left behind. The smoking ruins of their dwellings, the charred bones of the dead, and the slaughtered carcasses of the domestic animals were the only testimonials of the cause of the catastrophe, until some prisoner furnished more definite information. According to W.L.Stone, the Mohawk and Schoharie Valleys at war’s end had the appearance of “wide-spread, heart-sickening and universal desolation”. And those who were left at the return of peace were literally a people “scattered and peeled”. (33) Stone then adds that one third of the population of the valleys had gone over to the enemy, and that one third had been driven from the country, slain in battle and by private assassination. Another source states that the original ten thousand settlers in the Mohawk and Schoharie Valleys were reduced to thirty-five hundred at the end of hostilities and of these three hundred were widows, and two thousand orphans. (34)

Wheat production in the New England states had fallen even before the war, and the farmers in the Mohawk, Schoharie and Hudson River Valleys rushed to fill the gap. They were at the time of the revolution America’s “wheat basket”. But they over-specialized in wheat growing because of an expanding market. The plan was for the New York frontier settlements to supply wheat to the northern continental army and the New England states. The burning of the Mohawk and Schoharie settlements, however, brought psychic horror, economic ruin and near starvation for the farmers, and widespread shortages and great hunger for all. The Schoharie Valley was particularly hard hit. “The settlement of Schoharie [in 1780] which alone was able to furnish, according to a letter from General Washington, 80,000 bushels of grain for public use, has been totally laid in ashes.” (35)

The ultimate goal of these valley raids was to run off all the settlers and so shut down patriot food production completely. This didn’t happen only because the diehards who remained went to a system of fortified homesteads and “holdfasts”. These scattered small forts ensured the survival of those farmers who could flee their fields to safety within the walls when the alarm cannon sounded. But that meant that their crops were left to the mercy of the raiders, who would then burn down their farms. Gristmills and barns were prime targets. And although small loyalist and “Indian” raiding groups did not have the firepower to destroy these forts, their continuing existence only served to disperse the local patriot militias, making it almost impossible for militia commanders to put an end to the raids once and for all by concentrating their forces. And so the burning and the killing went on right into 1782.

Soldiers of “la petite guerre”, loyalists such as Benjamin Becraft and the first nations warriors who fought along side them, did their part in the Mohawk and Schoharie Valleys. At great cost to themselves, they severely crippled the patriot war effort. But they could not strike the fatal blow. That had to be delivered by British regular forces. This, the British failed to do. Then, when negotiations were made to end the fight, British diplomats and politicians failed to protect their colonial American troops, both “white” and indigenous. When soldiers like General Haldimand, who had fought the war in North America, learned how the articles of peace threatened the security of Canada, and made no provisions for the First Nations and loyalists, they confessed of being bowed down with grief. Said Haldimand, “I am heartily ashamed”. Ultimately Britain would help loyalists and the Haudenosaunee relocate to Canada. But they did nothing to help them receive compensation for their lost property in New York State. The years immediately following 1782 were most bitter for Benjamin Becraft, and so many other loyalists.


33. William L Stone, The Life and Times of Joseph Brant – Thayendanegea, pg. 236

34. C. Gehring, “Agriculture and the Revolution in the Mohawk Valley”, see www.threerivershms.com/agriculture.htm.

35. Simms, op. cit., pg. 444

Doug Massey, UE, Hamilton Branch

2015 Conference Loyalists Come West: A Bit of Britain

Loyalists Come West – the 2015 UELAC Conference, in Victoria, BC.

“Get your Euro fix without crossing the pond.” Join the Pacific Regional Branches on 28-31 May 2015 at the Coast Victoria Harbourside Hotel and Marina as we call all Loyalist’s Descendants and their guests to Come West for our Annual General Meeting and events. Take a WestJet flight (our Conference Discount Carrier) to Beautiful British Columbia’s capital.

Victoria, British Columbia has been called “more British than the British.” Take an authentic double-decker bus (hop-on hop-off) city tour to get your bearings. Then explore on your own, admiring the homes and English gardens of the Oak Bay residential area, sample some confections at a British candy shop and take afternoon tea at the Fairmont Empress Hotel. If you prefer something a bit stronger, nothing beats a gin and tonic in the Hotel’s Bengal Lounge. If you take a stroll up Government Street, you will eventually find one of the world’s best teashops, Murchie’s Tea. Stop by their quaint shop and sample some Queen Victoria Tea and scones or some other delectable treats.

Albany NY In the Seven Years War: Part 2, by Bill Glidden

Abstract: Impression—Oppression

Up until the French and Indian War (The Seven Years War), the British applied their sea power only sporadically, and the colonies remained essentially separate governments, with separate and often conflicting interests, lacking a common purpose though menaced by a common danger.

At the outbreak of the war, actions taken of centralizing imperial administration, strengthening the royal prerogative in America, and reducing all Americans — colonists and Native Americans alike — to a uniform dependence were actually consistent with the reforms pursued by the Board of Trade since 1748. Colonial union would be useful only in as much as it quickly placed American resources in the hands of a few royally appointed officers and strengthened the dependence that made colonies useful assets to an imperial state. From this point of increasing imperial administration, events actually led toward revolt in the American Revolution.

Serious Problems

During the years of 1756 through 1758, the city council in Albany clashed with John Campbell, Fourth Earl of Loudoun, the British Commander-In-Chief in North America, and British Captain John Bradstreet on serious problems involving impressments of horses and wagons, the quartering of troops, and the building of storehouses and bateaux on land along the waterfront. Land claimed at the end of the war to be owned by the Dutch Reformed Church. After the war, the church sued for damages, about 800 Pounds, and the matter put to arbitration in 1765. Today, the land on which these storehouses stood, is known as “The Pastures”.

Jacob Ten Eyck

As a member of the city council Jacob Ten Eyck would clash with the British authorities over civil problems brought on by the war.

Jacob Ten Eyck, born in April 1705, apprenticed in 1720 with Charles Le Roux in New York — a notable silversmith and engraver. By 1736, Jacob returned to Albany where he married Albany native Catharina Cuyler. In 1734 he won election to the city council first as assistant, after serving as a constable and firemaster. In 1741 Jacob, elected alderman for the first ward, held that position for a number of years. Six years later, Ten Eyck, appointed sheriff of Albany County, became mayor of Albany in 1748. The first mayor appointed from a trade other than fur trading, that of a silversmith. He served for two years. Following his term at City Hall, he again held the office of Alderman in 1750 for the second ward through the war years.

During the war Ten Eyck listened to and observed the sights of his Dutch town. The sound of carpenters’ tools and the rumble of market carts came from every direction. The shadow of sails appeared along the new docks built on the Hudson River. All manner of goods, Holland beer and cloth, English tools, furniture, pictures, books, sugar and molasses, arrived on the docks. In turn, furs, deerskins, meats, vegetables and lumber loaded into boats for shipment to New York and destinations beyond. Newcomers, mostly Irish and Scotch army enlistees, moved from the docks into the town. Being somewhat suspicious of strangers, Jacob looks upon them, and thinks that his town is certainly undergoing great changes.

Jacob wondered to what extent his own attitude and those of his Dutch friends would change. Issues mounted concerning the way the British resorted to force to get what it needed. Squads of redcoats swept through the Albany countryside, seizing supplies and transport and jailing everyone who refused to cooperate. Jacob served through the war until 1762. He eventually became one of the wealthiest Albany businessmen with property assessments regularly near the top of the community’s householders.

Another Albanian, Abraham Yates, Jr., a former shoemaker who became a lawyer holding the position of Sheriff of Albany, also noted that many people, rather than having their wagons and horses or themselves taken by the British, were determined to resist and to suffer. Some farmers chose to drive their wagons and horses into the woods to escape impressments.

Yates shared his angry findings about British conduct with his political ally, William Livingston, his constituents, the city council and the governor. Yates argued that the military’s claim to superior authority was “Inconsistent with the Constitution of England”. He believed in limited government power. Limitations set by a man’s “Fixed fundamental rights born with him”. Obviously, Yates contended, the military’s action posed a grave threat to “Freedom of his person and property”, freedom that all Englishmen can constitutionally claim.


The problem of quarters quickly surfaced. For although the New York Assembly had appropriated 1000 Pounds to build barracks in Albany, no new additional construction had been undertaken. Without the barracks, newly arrived troops would have to be quartered in private homes, for there were not nearly enough public houses to even house the first two regiments to arrive.

The Mayor of Albany refused to quarter Loudoun’s troops. He told the General that “he understood the law that (Loudoun) had no right to Quarters or Storehouses, or anything else from them; and that (Albany) would give none”. Loudoun promptly labeled the Mayor, “a fool”, and thereafter communicated with only one of the Mayor’s staff, tersely informing him that as a military officer he “must follow the custom of armies and help myself to Quarters”. When the Mayor and his council remained adamant, Loudoun ordered his quartermaster with the 48th Regiment, Captain Gabriel Christie, to forcibly place soldiers into homes. Loudoun literally forced the residents of Albany to meet his demands but he could not make them accept the arguments he used to justify his high-handed actions. Yates noted the death of a pregnant woman as a result of the action.

Note: This is from Liberty Corridor – Chapter 21, #B

…G. William Glidden, Registered Historian, Assoc. of Public Historians

Comment re: 8 Fast facts About Hessians

Thank You so much for reference to this piece.

Our grandfather, Christian (Christopher) Ortlip (Artlip) so long ago was one of those “Hessians” from Brunswick who deserted at Saratoga, later married the daughter of a Loyalist who was killed at Bennington and together they produced 10 children.

These facts will become part of our family history papers, presented to all our children and anyone else who may have a problem with “Hessian Mercenaries.”

Thank You, Bethany Collins, for presenting the facts so clearly and understandably.

…Kenneth Artlip

Where in the World?

Where are Bonnie Schepers and Fred Hayward?

To participate, submit a photo of yourself in UELAC promotional gear at a place of some note and tell us where it is. If you are a member of a branch, please indicate that as well – send to Jennifer Childs.

War of 1812: Remembrance at the Old Burying Ground, Halifax

The Chairman and Directors of the Old Burying Ground Foundation Invite you to attend: Silent Heroes, An Act Of Remembrance: Honouring Significant Legacies Left To The Old Burying Ground From The War Of 1812-1814

Major General Robert Ross Commander of the British Land Forces at Bladensburg, Washington and Baltimore

Sergeeant Richard Smith, Colour Seargeant, 104th (New brunswick) Regiment of Foot

At The Old Burying Ground, Halifax, Nova Scotia, September 14th 2014 2:00 pm

With Members of the 1st Battalion, The Royal New Brunswick Regiment, The Garrison Militia, Army Cadets, Tri Service Cadets Fifes & Drums, Halifax Citadel Regimental Association

Barrington Street (at Spring Garden Road), Halifax, Nova Scotia

From the Twittersphere and Beyond

  • Volumes 1 and 2 of Egerton Ryerson’s, The Loyalists of America and Their Times 1620-1816 (published in 1880) are available in a variety of formats at Gutenberg. This is an interesting and informative look at history from a totally different perspective than we have today by the founder of Ontario’s public school system. A search of Gutenberg for Canadian History offers many more vintage titles. Submitted by Alex Lawrence
  • Joseph Warren inscribes (defaces?) his Latine Exercises for School-Boys school book: “Fudell All Our Noses”
  • Quick Guide to Canada and Canadian Citizenship. What every Canadian citizen must know.
  • A chuckle whether you are digitally inclined or not – This will be happening in schools across Canada today (last Tuesday).

Additions to the Loyalist Directory

As time permits, we add information to the Loyalist Directory. The latest additions and updates are as follows:
– Belyea, John – from David Hongisto, volunteer Linda McClelland
– Belyea, Henry – from David Hongisto, volunteer Linda McClelland
– Cain, Isaiah – from Arthur Pegg
– Carns, Jacob – from Mahlon Cook, and from Arthur Pegg
– Gordon, John – from John Shotwell
– Moody, Col. James – from Rick Moody

Please help us build the directory by contributing more information for it. Contact loyalist.trails@uelac.org for instructions and guidance.


Land Grants in Adolphustown and Marysburgh

The following item was submitted by Bonny Campbell, who is researching Christopher Peterson and Moses Dean. Additional information for the Loyalist Directory on any of these would be appreciated.

Source: Land Board Schedule of Granted land in the Township of Marysburgh, District of Mecklenburg 1789:

– Concession 1, east side of Carrying Place (called First Concession) – opposite Adolphustown in 1800, Lot 11 owners: Christopher Peterson 100 acres, Moses Deane 100 acres

Source: Land Board Schedule of Granted land in the Township of Adolphustown District of Mecklenburgh, 1789:

– Concession 2 lot 23 to William Moore 100 acres; Moses Deane 100 acres (noted as Joseph Dean in 1800 location register for Adolphustown)

– Lot 25 John Whitely 100 acres; John Deane 100 acres

– Concession 4 Deane, Samuel Lieutenant 1/2 lot 16 100 acres; Deane (Samuel) 1/2 lot 14 in Con 4 50 acres

Source: Settler land owner – The first heir and Devisee Commission for the Midland District 1797-1803 by Linda Corupe

– Joseph Allan, Claim # 126 Yeoman of Marysburgh Twp – Mr. Allan stated he purchased from John Dean lot 17 in the 2nd and 3rd concession

– Benjamin Clapp claim 1799 West half of lot 25 conc. 3 Adolphustown Original nominee: John Dier (Dear)

Proof submitted: a ticket of location that John Whitley and John Dear are entitled to 200 acres of land by His Majesty’s Instructions and have drawn lot 25 Con. 3 in seigneuree; # 4 consisting of 200 acres. Ticket dated Sept. 24, 1784 at Bay Quinte and signed by Deputy Surveyor General; John Deane then traded this lot for an equivalent lot in Fredericksburg to Peter Van Skiver; Demorest, of Sophiasburgh Towp claim # 111 in 1803 Peter Valleau stated Christian Peterson to Moses Dean drew this lot. Certificate to Peterson and Dean lost. Memorest made improvements on this lot after purchase 10 years ago 1793

These people are listed in the Loyalist Directory but with no additional data

– Joseph Allan

– Samuel Dean

– William Moor

– Christian Peterson

– Peter Valleau

– Peter Van Skiver is recorded as Peter Vanskiver

– John Whitley (but in Eastern District)

These people are not. Should they be either as Loyalists or military claimants (British or Hessian forces)

– Benjamin Clapp

– Moses Dean

– Joseph Dean

– John Deane

– John Dier (but John Dies is)

– Christopher Peterson (could he be a misspelled Christian?)

… (reply to Doug, loyalist.trails@uelac.org)