“Loyalist Trails” 2017-08: February 19, 2017

In this issue:
2017 UELAC Conference: Discover Your Roots
The Course of True (Loyalist) Love, by Stephen Davidson
More Details on Five Loyalist Claims, by John Noble
JAR: Duncan Grant’s Wife Margaret: Someone to write home about
The Junto – Guest Review: Never Caught: Ona Judge, the Washingtons, and the Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave
Atlantic Loyalist Connections: In Sickness and in Health: the Black Refugees at Hammonds Plains, winter 1827
Faux-Loyalism: Who Gets Evaluated vs. Who Gets Left Behind
A Loyalist’s Detailed Obituary
Ontario Drivers Last chance: Celebrate Heritage Month with a Loyalist Licence Plate!
Where in the World?
Region and Branch Bits
From the Twittersphere and Beyond
Last Post: Patricia Jay Mckenzie, UE


2017 UELAC Conference: Discover Your Roots

June 22 – 25, 2017; London, Ontario

Hosted by: London & Western Ontario Branch and Grand River Branch

Registration and details.

The Course of True (Loyalist) Love

© Stephen Davidson, UE

During the era of loyalist settlement, many a young couple may have become engaged on St. Valentine’s Day. Some young refugees might have wanted to tie the knot immediately; others would wait for time when their families could gather or until there was sufficient resources to begin married life. However, despite the fact that the young lovers were in a pioneer situation, they still had to jump through a variety of “hoops” before they could become husband and wife. Loyalist marriage (and divorce) were not as simple as one might suppose.

New Brunswick, a colony founded by loyalists in 1784, gives us the first insight into the prevailing attitudes toward marriage and divorce. In 1791, its provincial legislative passed an act to set down the rules surrounding “matrimonial union” in a “decent and regular society”. As we review this legislation, it is important to remember that it did not necessarily reflect the views of all loyalists who settled in New Brunswick. In fact, some would have been outraged by how marriage was “limited by certain rules and restraints” in the first loyalist colony.

Anyone of lawful age (twenty-one) could “make a contract of marriage” provided that the father or guardian of the parties gave his consent. The betrothed couple could arrange their marriage with either a justice of the peace or a “parson, vicar, curate or other person in Holy Orders in the Church of England”. No other authorities within New Brunswick were given permission to solemnize marriages. No one else would be given a government licence to perform weddings. This legislation certainly did not reflect the will of the people, rather it demonstrated the governing elite’s intentions to establish the Church of England as the state church. The first step toward that goal would be by giving it the sole right to perform weddings.

The only exceptions that the colonial legislature allowed were the Kirk of Scotland, the Church of Rome or the Society of Friends (the Quakers) – and then only if the couple planning to wed were members of those denominations. Despite the fact that New Brunswick had loyalists who were Jews, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Lutherans, their clergy had absolutely no right to perform weddings.

After a couple found the appropriate Anglican authority to marry them, it was then up to the clergyman to make a “proclamation” over three successive Sundays in “an audible voice” in a “public place of meeting for religious worship” in the community where the couple lived. If a justice of the peace was to officiate at the wedding, he had to post a “notification of such banns of matrimony in writing” to either a church or a public building where it could be read over three successive Sundays.

At the end of three weeks, if the official overseeing the wedding did not receive any word of a “lawful impediment or objection”, then the marriage ceremony could proceed.

Any non-Anglican clergyman who performed a wedding would be fined anywhere from 50 to 100 pounds for every marriage that he performed – and would be put in jail for twelve months. (This fine was quite severe. It was roughly equivalent to the price of two yokes of oxen, the cost of two or three horses, or several hundred bushels of wheat.)

The New Brunswick legislation also declared consequences for activity outside of marriage. “And, for the more effectually preventing, and punishing of Incest, Adultery, Fornication, and all acts of lewdness, and unlawful cohabitation, and intercourse between Man and Woman; Be it further enacted, that every person, who shall be hereafter lawfully convicted of any of the crimes aforesaid. . . shall be punished, by fine, and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the Court”.

Divorce – as well as the dissolving or annulling of marriage – would only be permitted in cases of “frigidity or impotence, adultery and consanguinity” (marriage to close relatives). Divorcing loyalist couples were assured that their children would not be considered illegitimate. A wife could not be “barred of her dower” or a husband “thereby deprived of any tenancy”. All cases of divorce, “separation from bed and board”, and alimony were to be heard before the colony’s governor and at least five of his legislative council members.

If you were to suggest that the young couple ought to move to Upper Canada to marry, their prospects would have been no better. In 1793, the second loyalist colony passed its own marriage act. The new law recognized that loyalist weddings before 1793 were legally binding, but stipulated that all future marriages must be performed by Anglican clergy – a position strongly defended by the colony’s lieutenant-governor, John Graves Simcoe.

It would take the passage of many years, but eventually loyalists and their children were allowed to be married by the clergyman of their choosing. That “first marriage celebrated under the new marriage act” was reported by the New Brunswick Royal Gazette. The Rev. Enoch Wood, a Wesleyan Methodist minister, united Samuel McPherson and Eliza Ann Segee in Fredericton during the first week of 1835.

However, in the opening years of the loyalist era, Shakespeare’s words were a most apt description of the situation in which most loyalist lovers found themselves: “The course of true love never did run smooth”.

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

More Details on Five Loyalist Claims, by John Noble

Stephen Davidson in his article “Valentine’s Day: Montreal 1788” (February 12) lists six Loyalists who submitted their claims to the Loyalist Commissioners on February 14, 1788. Davidson notes that “the transcripts of the Royal Commission on the Losses and Services of American Loyalists do not record what funds –if any– were awarded that day.” Having recently discovered that the decisions/determination of the Loyalist Commissioners were recorded separately from memorials and testimony by claimants, I decided to try to find out what the determination/decision of the Loyalist Commissioners had been for each of these individuals using the methodology outlined in my recent article Research: Searching Loyalist Claims on Ancestry.ca and Elsewhere which was published in Loyalist Trails.

I could not find any reference to Johann Michael Gallinger in Peter Windsor Coldham’s “American Migrations 1765-1799” (Ancestry file here). The other five, Philip Eamer, John Farlinger, Christian Schick, Jacob Waggoner, and Michael Warner are all listed with numbers and pages for the various files in the A 12 and AO I3 series that I could find.

The determination/decisions of the Commissioners for each of these individuals is found on AO 12 file “Piece No 64: Decisions for New York”. However, Ancestry doesn’t have Piece 64 in its database of AO 12 and 13. Ancestry’s files go from AO 12 “Piece 62: Decisions New Hampshire” to “Piece 65: Temporary Support G-L New York”, skipping Pieces 63 and 64. Piece 64 exists somewhere as Coldham listed the page number for each of the claimants (except for Johann Michael Gallinger).

However, Coldham has identified another file in the AO 12 series: “Piece 109: Reports & Statements 1784 -1789” which lists the amount claimed by each of these individuals, the sum originally allowed, the sum allowed on revision, the percentage to be deducted by Act of Parliament, total sum payable under Act of Parliament; the sum already received, balance after such receipt, deduction on account of pension, and final balance. The details for the five individuals are on different pages, except for Michael Warner and Jacob Waggoner, and there are not entries for all of these headings:

Philip Eamer’s initial claim in Piece 109 page 136 (60) was for £251/5 of which £170 was allowed on revision. The sum payable by Act of Parliament was £170. There was no portion paid out leaving a final balance of £170 payable. The amount of the claim which Eamer submitted in his memorial contained in AO 13 “Piece 12: New Claims C, D, E, F., New York” pages 341-342 (425-426) was for £449/11.

John Farlinger’s initial claim in Piece 109 page 146 (65) was for £44/11 of which £41 was allowed on revision. The sum payable under Act of Parliament was £41. There was no portion advanced leaving a final balance of £41. The claim which Farlinger submitted in AO 13 “Piece 102: New Claims for C, D, E, F., New York” page 384 (481) was for £152.

Christian Schick’s initial claim in Piece 109 page 284 (153) was for £657/16 of which £182 was allowed on revision. The sum payable under Act of Parliament was £182. There was no portion advanced leaving a final balance of £182. The amount of his original claim in his memorial in AO 13 “Piece 15: New Claims P, Q, R, S., New York” page 546 (651) was £1169/8.

Michael Warner’s initial claim in Piece 109 page 318 (172) was for £243/10 of which £140 was allowed on revision. The sum payable under Act of Parliament was £140. There was no portion advanced leaving a final balance of £140. The amount of his claim in his memorial in AO13 Piece 16 New Claims: T, V, W, Y., New York” pages 251-252 (316-317) was £428/18 with two revision shown on his claim bringing it down to £243/10.

Jacob Waggoner’s initial claim in Piece 109 page 318 (172) was for £90 of which £60 was allowed on revision. The sum payable under Act of Parliament was £60. There was no portion advanced leaving a final balance of £60. The amount of his claim in his memorial in AO13 Piece 16 New Claims: T, V, W, Y., New York” pages 215-217 (275-277) was £170/11.

The numbering of the pages on the documents does not correspond with the microfilm pages for AO 12 and 13 found on Ancestry which I have listed in parenthesis after each nominal page number above. The Ancestry files for AO12 and 13 “UK, American Loyalist Claims, 1776-1835” are found here.

I realize that the documents cited above raise as many questions as they provide answers. Why the discrepancy between the amount of the claim submitted with the memorial and the initial amount of the claim contained in Piece 109? What was the basis of such downward revisions and the further downward revisions by the Loyalist Commissioners?

The other observation is the differences in the amounts of the claims and the rather small amounts paid out to these claimants relative to their claims. Those with larger claims appear to have larger downward revisions than those with smaller claims. But five is too small a sample on which to generalize.

Why is there no reference to Johann Michael Gallinger in Peter Windsor Coldham’s “American Migrations 1765-1799” which professes to contain all of the claims submitted to Loyalist Commissioners?

I will be trying to get Ancestry to locate Piece 64 of AO12.

John Noble, UE

JAR: : Duncan Grant’s Wife Margaret: Someone to write home about

by Don N. Hagist on February 14, 2017

Duncan Grant was proud of his wife. She was someone to write home about, and that’s exactly what he did. In a letter to his father, he boasted that she kept him “more like a gentleman than a Soldier.”

That was quite a compliment; if it was true, Margaret Grant must have been quite an enterprising woman. Duncan was a British soldier in the 21st Regiment of Foot, known as the Royal North British Fusiliers. Son of a farmer from the town of Duthil, southeast of Inverness in Scotland, just west of Grantown-on-Spey, he had enlisted as a soldier well before war broke out in America.[1] His regiment sailed from Plymouth in England to Quebec in Canada in early 1776 to relieve that place from an American siege. After campaigning from Quebec to Lake Champlain in the fall of 1776, the 21st spent the winter at St. John’s on the Richelieu River. In 1777, they were with Gen. John Burgoyne’s army that captured Fort Ticonderoga and other posts, then began to push down the Hudson River towards Albany.

Read more.

The Junto – Guest Review: Never Caught: Ona Judge, the Washingtons, and the Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave

Feb 17 by Jessica Parr on The Junto

Erica Armstrong Dunbar, Never Caught: Ona Judge, the Washingtons, and the Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017).

On May 21, 1796, as George and Martha Washington ate their supper in the Philadelphia Executive Mansion, their twenty-two year old house slave, Ona Judge, walked out of the house and into freedom. With the help of the free black community in Philadelphia, Judge made her way to Portsmouth, New Hampshire where the free black community and white supporters provided refuge.

One would expect the fatherly and compassionate George Washington of Hamilton or the stately Washington staring out from Mt. Rushmore over the South Dakota landscape would respond by—well, the Washingtons as slaveholders aren’t a topic that has had entered general discussion in the American collective consciousness. He’s the Revolutionary War hero, the elder statesman, the first President of the United States of America. Through Ona Judge’s story of flight and freedom, however, Dunbar presents us with another Washington; a Washington willing to abuse his office and power to hunt another human being.

Read more.

Atlantic Loyalist Connections: In Sickness and in Health: the Black Refugees at Hammonds Plains, winter 1827

During the War of 1812, an estimated 2,000 slaves escaped America and arrived at Nova Scotia. This number was undoubtedly influenced by Vice-Admiral Cochrane’s proclamation of 2 April 1814, wherein it is stated that “all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the United States will, with their families, be received as. . .. . .Free Settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies, where they will meet with all due encouragement.” Initially, the Lieutenant-Governor was very encouraging about the Black Refugees’ futures and indicated that he would do “everything to alleviate their distress and render their situation comfortable.” Today it is understood that that there is a relationship between overcrowded and poor living conditions and the spread of disease. Moreover, we are aware that poverty and poor health are inextricably linked, and marginalised groups are often the worst affected. Found at Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia was one such marginalised group in the early nineteenth century; they were relegated to the fringes of society with a lack of access to rights, resources and opportunities – causing vulnerability. In the winter of 1827, Dr. John Carter, John Starr and Rev. Robert Willis visited this black community of refugees to investigate a “fever similar to scarlet fever” which was heard to be of epidemic proportions. Within the reports that followed, are the details which show the links between health, poverty, and poor living conditions.

Read more.

Faux-Loyalism: Who Gets Evaluated vs. Who Gets Left Behind

January 31, 2017 by Steph Walters (UELAC Scholarship holder)

Before I ever started the prospectus for my dissertation I struggled with one of the most basic questions anyone in the business of loyalism has ever faced. Out of the thousands of people who claimed to be Tories during the American Revolution, how do we determine who gets to be labeled a loyalist? The question is simple enough but has an extraordinarily complex answer. My conclusions are far from perfect–especially in the beginning stages of the dissertation–and I’m already preparing myself to defend my choices in elevator speils every conference season until the end of time.

This dissertation is a social history, meaning I am interested in lots of numbers on lots of people and communities. I want to know how Virginia loyalists acted as individuals and as a community before, during, and after the war. This means I have a massive dataset of every loyalist I’ve been able to identify and any kind of social data I could scrape from the documents they left behind. This includes where they were born, where they lived during the war, number of children they had, where they lived after the war, if they served in the military, which regiment, what rank, race, gender, etc. If you can ask a question about it, I have a column for it. Almost 100 to be exact. However, with that much emphasis on individuals and their communities, I had to create guidelines for “who gets called a loyalist” vs “who was neutral” vs “who was ideologically confused” vs “faux-loyalists” Believe it or not. . . that’s difficult.

Read more.

A Loyalist’s Detailed Obituary

Lois Moulton found the following obituary in the Wednesday, September 6, 1780 issue of the Royal Gazette (New York, New York) page 3:

On Friday the 1st instant departed this life, much lamented, after a long and tedious illness, which he bore with great patience, in the 60th year of his age, Mr. Samuel Jarvis, a loyalist from Stanford {sic} in Connecticut, — and on Sunday his remains were interred, attended by a numerous body of the inhabitants of this city, and loyalists from different parts.

He was ever much respected by the circle of his acquaintance, as an honest man, an affectionate husband, tender parent, and sincere friend. He discharged the duties of Recorder in the town of Stanford {sic} for many years, in which he gave universal satisfaction, until the commencement of this cruel rebellion, which he early opposed with a patriotic zeal, and ever appeared a firm, unalterable advocate in {sic} behalf of his Sovereign and the glorious constitution.

His sons, by the persecution of the rebels, were early forced from their possessions, and came with the British lines. Notwithstanding the many and frequent abuses he met with, in person and property, from the banditti, he remained in possession of his farm, etc., etc., etc. until about twelve months ago, when his house was surrounded by a mob of rebels in the dead of night, himself, wife, three daughters, and one little son, turn’d out of their beds, stripp’d of every necessary, put on board a rebel whale boat, and landed at Tinicook {Matinicock} Point, Long Island, about two o’clock in the morning, obliging them to wade near midway in water to reach the shore, where they remained without the least refreshment until nine o’clock in the morning; since which cruel banishment the old Gentleman has been a stranger to health, peace, and comfort; but has uninterruptedly experienced sickness, distress, and want.

He cheerfully sacrificed a very considerable property, which would have put himself and family above the frowns of adverse fortune, to the mercy of the rebels, rather than deviate from his duty to his King, and attachment to his service. He has now left wife, three daughters, and one little son, to the mercy and benevolence of friends and a wide world.

Ontario Drivers Last chance: Celebrate Heritage Month with a Loyalist Licence Plate!

While the United Empire Loyalists arrived long before Confederation you can still share your pride in their heritage as you celebrate the 150th anniversary. You may remember the special centenary Ontario Licence Plate project that kicked off the 2014 celebrations. With less than forty-eight plates beginning with 02UE, you still have a chance to get a plate that you will remember and cause comments wherever you drive.

SAVE: for the rest of the month of February, you can save 30 dollars when you place your order. AND we will also ship your request FREE!

Take these 2 steps now:

Email public.relations@uelac.org with your preferred number chosen from the following: 16-19, 23, 24, 26-32, 34, 36-38, 40, 42, 47, 49, 52-55, 57, 59, 67, 69, 72-75, 79, 90-95, 97, 98.

Send your cheque for $80.00 and this form to the George Brown House office.

Show your support of the UELAC and your pride in your pre-confederation heritage.

…Fred H. Hayward, UELAC Public Relations

Where in the World?

Where is Carol Harding and Joe Munroe of Nova Scotia Branch?

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 your submission to the editor at loyalist.trails@uelac.org.

Region and Branch Bits

From the UELAC branches, news and events of interest to others.

  • Tracing my Roots to the Black Loyalists of Digby, Nova Scotia with Allister Barton. Tuesday, February 21 at 7 p.m.
    • Tracing my family roots to the Black Loyalists of Digby is a tribute to my grandfather, the late Sgt. George William Barton (1917-1995), on what would have been his 100th birthday. The life of the late George “Buster” Barton from Acaciaville is an exciting chapter in the Barton’s family history. Join the journey to discover more than 250 years of the Barton lineage and the stories that will bring our family tree to life. We know about the Black Loyalists of Nova Scotia, but who were the Black Pioneers of Digby?
      • What is the Barton’s connection to the community of Barton, Digby County?
      • Are all Barton’s from Digby descended from the same lineage?
      • Where are the Barton’s today?
      • How do I build a family tree?
    • Find out the answers to those questions and how to trace your own family tree. RSVP with allister.barton@gmail.com by Friday, February 17, 2017.

From the Twittersphere and Beyond

  • Taken before the snow came to Nova Scotia, this video is about the United Empire Loyalists who named New Edinburgh, Digby County, Nova Scotia. Brian McConnell UE
  • Halifax man traces roots to the Black Loyalists of Digby. Allister Barton’s discovery that his family name does not appear in the Book of Negroes led him on a two-year journey to find out whether they had any connection to the Black Loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia in the late 1700s. “Further questions about that led to an understanding that not all Black Loyalists who arrived in Nova Scotia were listed,” Barton said Thursday. Read more…
  • This week at In The Past Lane, we take a new look at a familiar event — the American Revolution. Think you know this key chapter in American history? Think again. For as our special guest, historian Alan Taylor, argues in his new book, American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804, the American Revolution was also a civil war. And it had an impact far beyond the 13 colonies along the Atlantic coast. We also talk to Jim Moran, Director of Outreach at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, MA, about a little-known but important chapter in the story of American independence. Hear the podcast…
  • An 18thC English Georgian oak and brass coopered tripod zinc lined wine cooler holds at least a dozen bottles and ice
  • Today in History: Lars D.H. Hedbor @LarsDHHedbor (see his page for associated photos)
    • 12 Feb 1789 Ethan Allen, of Green Mt. Boys, dies of stroke, possibly following a night of drinking & carousing.
    • 13 Feb 1776 Patrick Henry is placed in command of defense of Virginia’s gunpowder supply.
    • 14 Feb 1779 Patriots defeat Loyalists at Kettle Creek, GA, after mortally wounding Colonel Boyd, leading to a rout.
    • 15 Feb 1776 Governor of Nova Scotia warns Crown that corruption crackdown may spur Patriot sympathizers to rebel.
    • 16 Feb 1776 Congress debates re-opening ports declared closed by Parliament, in an act of outright defiance.
    • 17 Feb 1782 British and French naval forces clash in Indian Ocean, in a little-known front in the Revolutionary War.
    • 18 Feb 1776 Virginia Royal Governor Dunmore objects to sending Gen Clinton to defend “insignificant” South-Carolina.
  • The National Trust for Canada is Looking for Canada’s Top 10 Endangered Places and is now accepting nominations for the 2017 Canada’s Top 10 Endangered Places List. Each year, the list shines a national spotlight on historic places at risk due to neglect, lack of funding, inappropriate development or weak legislation. “Canadians care about their special places, yet they face powerful forces that threaten to destroy them,” said Natalie Bull, executive director. “The National Trust’s Top 10 Endangered Places List has become a powerful tool in the fight to make landmarks, not landfill.” Read more; make a nomination.
  • Akara: the third of a series that focuses on historic foods of the enslaved African community of North America. video.
  • Side view, showing heel, profile. Silk satin shoes with embroidered toe, 1785-95 Private Collection
  • I’m super jealous of this 18th century waistcoat! I want embroidered animals and flowers on my clothes too! at Museum Of London

Last Post: Patricia Jay Mckenzie, UE

September 27, 1932 – February 09, 2017

Patricia Jay McKenzie (née Atlee) passed away peacefully surrounded by her loving family: sons Craig (Andrew), Colin (Melanie) and Clark (Jennifer), her grandchildren Miko, Michelle, James, Jordan, Jaxson and Jesse, and her former daughter-in-law Minna.

Pat was born and raised in New Westminster, BC and settled in Vancouver with her family after living in Hong Kong and Indonesia. She was a proud sixth generation Canadian and a member of the United Empire Loyalists. She served as an instructor and department chair in Langara College’s Early Childhood Education department from 1979 to 1998 where her innovative ideas and tireless efforts were recognized with a scholarship in her name and the honour of faculty emerita awarded in 2014. Pat was a passionate supporter of her community and a strong advocate for services for children and families. Among her many volunteer activities, she was a board member for Soroptimist Vancouver and Vancouver Second Mile Society.

A memorial service will be held Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:30 pm at Shaughnessy Heights United Church at 1550 West 33 Ave, Vancouver. In lieu of flowers, remembrances may be given to Soroptimist, Second Mile Society or the Patricia McKenzie Scholarship at Langara College.

Pat, a member of Vancouver Branch, received her UE certificate in 2013 at our BC Loyalist Day Celebrations. Her Loyalist Ancestor is Gabriel Fowler, who settled in New Brunswick.

Published in Vancouver Sun and/or The Province on Feb. 18, 2017.

…Carl Stymiest