“Loyalist Trails” 2020-18: May 3, 2020

In this issue:
Major Zadock Wright: Loyal Citizen of a New Kingdom, by Stephen Davidson
Same Theme, New Topic: Ask A Scholar
The Waldeck Settlement in Nova Scotia
Origin of the Name of Brinley Town NS
From Diplomacy to “Defence”: Vol 18, The Papers of John Adams
Boston and Smallpox
1832 Cholera Chronicle (Part 3), by Chris Raible
Jewish Heritage Month: Loyalist Jews
Loyalist Jews During the American Revolution: The Loyalist Diaspora (Part 1)
JAR: Cornwallis and the Winter Campaign, January to April 1781
Book Review: 1774: The Long Year of Revolution
Where in the World?
From the Twittersphere and Beyond
Additions to the Loyalist Directory
      + Disbanded Troops and Loyalists
      + UE or U.E.


Major Zadock Wright: Loyal Citizen of a New Kingdom

© Stephen Davidson, UE

Col. John Peters and Major Zadock Wright, the senior officers in the Queen’s Loyal Rangers, had had a narrow escape. Given permission to return to Canada following the defeat at the Battle of Bennington, they had evaded capture and execution at the hands of rebel forces in New York. Both Loyalists had been forced to leave their families and lands in Vermont. Now safe in Montreal in November of 1777, what would each man do?

The news from Vermont in 1778 was not encouraging. Having a appointed a court to confiscate and sell the property of “enemies of the United Statess”, rebels seized the land of both Loyalists. Had the men been in Vermont at the time, they might have been whipped as others had been who remained loyal to the crown.

Because Zadock Wright had “rendered himself very obnoxious to this neighbours”, his land was confiscatred and the farm was rented to a local man named Moses Evans. “Some exceptions in favour of his wife” were made, allowing her and the Wright children to remain in Hartland, Vermont.

At some point in 1778, Patriots arrested Wright when he returned to Vermont to take his family to Canada. Account books have survived that show the sums owed members of the Vermont militia for guarding the Loyalist officer. Apparently it took as many as six rebels to guard the Wright home. The cost? 10 pounds four shillings for three days and nights of sentinel duty.

Wright’s imprisonment must have been a long one. In July of 1779, the “effective roll” of the Queen’s Loyal Rangers still listed him as “a prisoner with the rebels”. Finally, in July of 1780, the Commissioners for Conspiracies released Wright from his prison cell, putting him on a parole which specified that he had to stay within Vermont’s Kings District. In the next month, he was ordered to report to the Commissary of State Prisoners on parole in Fishkill, New York — a journey of over 230 kilometres.

Other accounts say that Wright was also imprisoned in Albany, New York in August of 1780. This was when he was introduced to an English woman known as Mother Ann. Patriots had put her in a cell not far from the Loyalist. Like Wright, this woman was considered a traitor, not because she had taken up arms against the new republic, but because she was the leader of a religious group that preached pacifism. To rebels, anyone that was not supporting their cause — even a neutral– was an enemy.

Ann Lee was the founder of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing. An illiterate factory worker, she had immigrated to New England with eight followers in 1774. Because they incorporated enthusiastic dancing in their worship services, Lee’s converts came to be known as the Shakers. Amid the tumult of the American Revolution, New York was experiencing a religious revival that saw the spread of Shaker teachings along its frontiers. Zadock Wright’s experiences of battle and imprisonment had brought him to a crisis of faith, and so he ws more than ready to listen to what Mother Ann had to say.

His fellow prisoner felt that the hand of God was in the revolution. America would be separated from England and become a land of liberty “for the gospel’s sake”. That liberty included social, economic, spiritual and sexual equality for all of those who became Shakers. Mother Ann’s followers believed that Christ had already come again, and that they were obligated to strive for perfection. Shakers were celibate: they did not marry or have children. They lived in “holy families” where the sexes lived as brothers and sisters, held all property communally, and set themselves the task of transforming earth into heaven.

Mother Ann’s conversations became more personal when she assured Wright that he would be set free and returned to his family — and that all of his fortunes would be restored within a year’s time. Wright did not become a Shaker during his imprisonment, but his encounter with Mother Ann left a lasting impression.

The effective rolls for the Queen’s Loyal Rangers still listed Wright as a prisoner of war in both December of 1780 and in May of 1781. After being a “prisoner at large” for three years, Wright was set free when he was exchanged for the rebel Captain Gideon Brownson. His captors described Wright as being a “shuffling Quaker” when they set him free, so he may have been warming to what Mother Ann had said.

By 1782, everything that Ann Lee had predicted for Zadock Wright had come true. He was back with his family in Hartland, Vermont, just across the Connecticut River from New Hampshire. Not surprisingly, Wright saw these developments as the fulfillment of Mother Ann’s prophecy. He became a Shaker and “continued faithfully to the end of his days.”

Wright’s political allegiance to the British crown was now replaced by a fervor to spread his newfound faith. He is remembered in Shaker history as helping two of its missionaries in their travels through New Hampshire in 1782. He was described as “a man of character, faithful in Christian duty, and became the first deacon and trustee of the church at Canterbury, {New Hampshire}”.

Within seventy years, Mother Ann’s religious sect grew from the 8 followers that she had in 1774 to more than 6,000 members who had formed 19 communes from Kentucky and Ohio to New England. Believing that the Divine lived in the details of their craftsmanship, they devoted themselves to creating simple, well-built goods. To this day, homes are still decorated with cabinets and furniture inspired by Shaker designs. Many also know “Simple Gifts”, the Shaker song that opens with the line, “‘Tis the gift to be simple, ’tis the gift to be free”.

Despite his newfound faith, Zadock Wright had not completely turned his back on his service as a Loyalist officer during the American Revolution. In September of 1783 –just three weeks after the Treaty of Paris concluded the war—Wright, the pacifist Shaker, asked for back pay from his former commanding officer, Col. John Peters. It is the last time that Wright’s name would appear in the documents of the war.

John Peters’ life took a far different path from that of his former second-in-command. Rather than finding peace within a community of like-minded people, Peters remaining years were filled with ongoing conflicts with British authorities, settlement in a struggling Loyalist community, and disappointment in his attempts to receive compensation for — and recognition as—being a Loyal American.

The final chapter in the stories of two officers in the Queen’s Loyal Rangers will be told in next week’s Loyalist Trails.

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

Same Theme, New Topic: Ask A Scholar

On March 29 we received our first Ask A Scholar question from Fred Johnson of Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Fred writes:

I have a question for a scholar: Corporal James Scriver of the King’s American Regiment was discharged St. John Harbour Nova Scotia 10 October 1783. The Archives of New Brunswick show that the land he was allotted was of poor quality and he asked for a different piece of land. However alternative land was never given to him. So he returned to Dutchess County New York State where he married and eventually moved to Prince Edward County Ontario and unfortunately died soon after. I have always been curious as to what this piece of land that he turned down looked like. Can a scholar provide a photograph of what the property looks like today? Just curious… Living in Thunder Bay Ontario, it is simply too far for me to make the journey at my age to New Brunswick. I should like to add such a photo to the research I am providing my grandson, Tristan, about his heritage. Thanks.

Fred is now in correspondence with Richard Yeomans, 2020 Loyalist Scholar who is searching the Crown Land Grant maps he has access to in order to locate the lot in question.

Using Robert Dallison’s book, Hope Restored: The American Revolution and the Founding of New Brunswick (NB Military Heritage Series, 2003) Richard located a map which shows where the various provincial regiments settled. In a brief section on The Kings American Regiment on pp 44-46, it is noted that they settled in block 6 in the parish of Canterbury, not far from Woodstock.

“That parish is not particularly suited to farming, as there are no navigable water ways to the St. John River (there is even a small settlement called Dead Creek, aptly named given your ancestor’s decision to leave). Unfortunately, the NB archives and UNB’s Loyalist Collection remain closed, and there is no staff on site to assist in the search. Once they reopen, I can see about tracking down the lot number in the surveyor general’s papers and land transfer records so to give you a more precise location of James Scriver’s grant. I will be sure to be in touch once I have access to those resources.”

Thank you to Fred and Richard for sharing your search progress. We remain convinced the answer is out there.

…Bonnie Schepers UE Scholarship Chair, Scholarship@uelac.org

The Waldeck Settlement in Nova Scotia

By Brian McConnell UE

Nova Scotia’s only monument to any group of Germans who settled in the province is located in a rural area of Annapolis County. On the corner of the Purdy Road and the Waldeck Line Road,a few kilometres East of Bear River, is located a Cairn which marks the Waldeck Line Road and remembers the men of the Waldeck Regiment who fought in the American Revolution on the side of the British and afterwards came to Nova Scotia to settle.

The Cairn was erected as a community project and sits in front of a building which was originally the West Waldeck School, a one room school, that later became the Waldeck Community Center.

After fighting the Rebels in the War of American Independence, men of the Waldeck Regiment were given lands in Annapolis County. Sir Guy Carleton, the British Commander in New York,arranged for each man who had served to receive land. The Waldeck Regiment was one of several Regiments made up from men of several German principalities which agreed in return fora financial arrangement to go to North America and support the British. Over 30,000 Germans fought in the conflict, although fewer than 1,500 were from Waldeck. The largest number were natives of Hesse and others were from Anhalt – Zerbst, Brunswick and Ansbach – Bayreuth.

Read more.

Origin of the Name of Brinley Town NS

While looking at old Wills of Loyalists from Nova Scotia I came upon some interesting information.

Brinley Town was the name given to a settlement created for Black Loyalists near Digby, Nova Scotia. It was named after George Brinley, who was a former storekeeper for the British army in New York and later the Commissary and Store Keeper General in Halifax. He reportedly gave assistance to the Black Loyalists who went to Brinley Town. This was not his only connection to the Blacks as in his Will dated November 2, 1798 and probated in 1809 he left his Estate to his ‘colured wife Mary Brinley”. (Source: Prerogative Court of Canterbury, PROB 11/1503, 3 Oct. 1809)

For more on Brinley Town see article A Reminder of Brinley Town.

From Diplomacy to “Defence”: Vol 18, The Papers of John Adams

By Sara Georgini 27 April 2020

For John Adams, the end of the American Revolution ushered in a difficult peace. This saga plays out in the 301 documents that compose Volume 18 of The Papers of John Adams, now available in our free Adams Papers Digital Editions, chronicling his public life from December 1785 to January 1787. His tenure as the first American minister to Britain from 1785 to 1788, which he seized on as his dream job—and a post that Adams heavily lobbied for in congressional circles—felt fruitless by late December 1785. After months of court presentations and dinner-table diplomacy, Adams could not persuade the British ministry to settle prewar debts, restore lost property, or normalize commercial relations. His face-to-face encounters with the British ministry ground to “a full stop.” With trademark candor, Adams reported home that King George III was too “obstinate” and possessed an “habitual Contempt of Patriots and Patriotism,” while the new prime minister, William Pitt the Younger, “oscillated like a Pendulum” on key questions of foreign policy. Adams projected that Anglo-American relations would continue suffering in a state of “contemptuous silence” and neglect.

The British newspapers made it worse.

Read more.

Boston and Smallpox

1716: Rev. Cotton Mather frees his slave Onesimus

When the Rev. Cotton Mather freed his dauntingly intelligent slave Onesimus around 1716, he attached a lot of conditions. Apparently he wanted the younger man to understand he was leaving the Mather household in the lurch.

“Enquiring of my Negro-man Onesimus, who is a pretty Intelligent Fellow, Whether he ever had ye Small-Pox; he answered, both, Yes, and No; and then told me, that he had undergone an Operation, which had given him something of ye Small-Pox, and would forever praeserve him from it; adding, That it was often used among ye Guramantese, & whoever had ye Courage to use it, was forever free from ye Fear of ye Contagion. He described ye Operation to me, and shew’d me in his Arm ye Scar, which it had left upon him.”

Read more.

1764: Inoculation and the Revere Family

On February 16, 1764, Paul Revere reported to the board of selectmen in Boston that one of his children, either Deborah, Paul Jr., or Sarah, had contracted smallpox — an acute and highly contagious viral disease. Beginning with an intense fever, purple spots and pustules followed, usually leaving disfiguring pockmarks. Some smallpox victims also lost skin, developed deep ulcers, or experienced severe bleeding from the nose or mouth. Boston’s Dr. Zabdiel Boylston commented that some smallpox patients “looked black as the stock, others white as a sheet.” In some instances, fortunate survivors were still left both physically and mentally disabled. Approximately one out of every six persons who contracted smallpox in the 18th century died from the disease.

By March 1764, smallpox had spread throughout the town. As a result, and in conjunction with his familial lockdown, Revere did no business for most of March and April. Many shops were abandoned or shut down between January and April, and over 1500 people fled the contagion by escaping into the countryside. With the epidemic reaching such a critical stage, the selectmen agreed to grant liberty to the residents to inoculate their families.

Inoculation in Boston was still a novelty in 1764. For the actual process, the inoculator would use a sharp toothpick to remove pus from a patient with “distinct” smallpox. The pus would then be collected in a quill…

Read more.

1832 Cholera Chronicle (Part 3), by Chris Raible

By Chris Raible

Understandably, “on a/c of the bad news,” brother John did not make his Montreal business trip. Instead he quickly departed “per ‘the Canada’ for the American side to purchase some necessary Drugs.” Both Lesslie brothers were apothecaries — both realized that their medicine trade was about to become very brisk! Indeed, the diary soon noted, “Camphor & opium have risen very much — the former 70 Cts. 2 months ago is now $3 to $3.50!”

Day after day, Lesslie’s diary entries recorded the number of new cholera cases: June 22 – 2, June 23 – 4, June 24 – 3 more with “4 Deaths since yesterday,” June 25 – “4 new cases & 2 deaths,” June 26 – “6 new cases & 5 deaths.” Not only did Lesslie cite numbers, he named victims: “Mr. Stevens a portrait Painter took ill last night at midnight & is now no more;” and “a Boy of 9 years…a child of Mr. Woods who Keeps the museum.”

Lesslie also repeated stories he heard: “The Steamer ‘Niagara’ left Port yesterday with passengers from below for Niagara & it is rumoured 3 of her Crew are dead on board of her by Cholera! — She had not been allowed to remain at the wharves but out in the Stream.” “Montreal has had a terrible visitation! By late accounts business was suspended & people going of to the country in all quarters — The Churches closed — deaths 200 in 24 or 36 hours!! — unable to find graves for them! — but in one vast grave they put the bodies & cover them with Lime!!!”

The Health Board continued its daily meetings. Convinced that cholera was carried by foul air, the Board instructed town inhabitants “to prevent the spread of malady by burning before their houses and in their yards pitch, tar, rosin, sulphur, or any other anti-contagious combustible at intervals during the day.” A barrel of tar was placed in the Court House yard “for the use of such as are too indigent to purchase it for themselves.”

As a deeply religious man, James Lesslie had no doubt about the reason for the deathly visitation: “This manifestation of the hatred of God against sin seems to be implied by the term ‘Cholera” a derivative perhaps from Choler signifying anger. — May we be all led wisely to consider our ways — to see the hand of God around us & to Love and serve him faithfully.”

Unlike many of his fellow citizens, Lesslie did not pack up and leave town. Nevertheless he tried psychologically to distance himself from the disease. At first he believed victims were only among the arriving immigrants. Then, when he saw the illness spread to town residents, he mused: “These cases & former ones have principally been unhappy victims of intemperance.” He noted: “a Coloured man took ill yesterday at 1 p.m. and died at 5 under the most appalling suffering — he had neglected the premonitions of a violent [God]” On the following day: “I saw a poor man… put in the covered car to be conveyed to the Hospital — and now he is dead — Heedless of the danger to which Intemperance peculiarly exposes… he had been laying on one of the wharves in a state of Intoxication all night!”

Wednesday, June 27, brought reason for optimism: “Today the report is more favourable 1 new case & 1 death,” even though, “4 new cases however are rumoured to have occured since the Report came out.” The next day, “clear weather but warm,” also seemed brighter: “The Cholera seems by todays Report not to be on the increase altho there have been 6 cases yet only one had terminated in death.” But on Friday, June 29th: “9 new cases of Cholera & six deaths since yesterday! — the alarm excited by it very great so that but a few persons are found coming in from the country but may leaving & going to a distance.”

Today, of course, we know that the epidemic eventually eased and that life went on. But Lesslie and his fellow townspeople at the time had no way of knowing that. All they knew was the sickness and death all around them. They could see cholera almost every day getting worse. It might never end.

The town’s authorities were trying to act, but like Lesslie they tended to see the problem as somehow other’s, not theirs. They tried to punish: “all drunkards found on the streets taken up and put either in Jail or the the Stocks.” They tried to cleanse: “Houses occupied by poor persons cleaned & washed.” They tried to dry the ground: “Drains making from the undrained parts of the Town.” They tried to dampen the air: “The dusty Streets watered every day by means of Carts filled for the purpose.” They tried to alter the air: “The burning of Tar, Pitch, Sulphur &c. recommended & adopted by many.” They advised: “The the use of the ‘Chloride of Lime’ as an anti-contagion.” They scolded: “Hand Bills circulated to persuade not to use Brandy — opium &c. as preventatives.”

Initially, these measures seemed to have some effect. Saturday, June 30th: “The Cholera seems from accounts today to be on the decline an event which ought to fill all hearts with gratitude to Him ‘whose tender mercies are over all his other works’ — 4 cases & 2 deaths appeared by the Report of the Board.” The next day, the Sabbath, July 1st, for the first time in two and a half weeks, Lesslie made no reference to the disease. Monday’s entry continued to be upbeat: “The report of the Board of Health more favourable today than it has been.” Nevertheless, “the various denominations have appointed special Prayer Meetings to implore the mercy of God in his awfull visitation upon our Land. The Cholera still raging in Lower Canada…”

(Continued next week)

Jewish Heritage Month: Loyalist Jews

The month of May in Canada is Jewish Heritage Month as enacted by Parliament on March 29, 2018. The Canadian Jewish Heritage Month Act, recognizes and celebrates the historic contributions of Canadian Jewish community.

In celebration of this, a team of UELAC writers – Stephen Davidson UE, Stuart Manson UE, and Stephen McDonald UE, collaborated to write a series of articles about Loyalist Jews and their experiences during the American Revolutionary War and later in Canada. The story of our Loyalist Jews has rarely been told. It is our desire to remember, celebrate and educate future generations about the inspirational role that Loyalist Jews have played in our country’s history.

Loyalist Jews During the American Revolution: The Loyalist Diaspora (Part 1)

By Stephen Davidson UE, Stuart Manson UE, and Stephen McDonald UE

The month of May in the Province of Ontario, Canada, is Jewish Heritage Month and to celebrate this let’s look back in history and examine the lives of a few Loyalist Jews, who, I believe during the American Revolution remained loyal to the Crown and eventually moved to Canada.

But first, let’s begin by examining the American Revolution and the plight of the United Empire Loyalists (UEL).

In reality, the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was a vicious civil war pitting Rebels against Loyalists. At the beginning of the conflict people living in the colonies were divided in sentiment; some scholars argued that one-third were for independence as a republic, one-third were against independence as a republic and were loyal to the King, and the remaining one-third were neutral.

By the end of the American Revolutionary War, approximately 100,000 Loyalists were forced to leave the new United States and scatter throughout the British Empire. This ‘Loyalist Diaspora’ resulted in about 90,000 coming to what is now Canada.

Even before the war started, Loyalists were being severely persecuted. For example, in Connecticut, draconian ‘Committees of Observation’ were established in communities to weed-out and enforce laws against anyone who was not a ‘Patriot’. Sadly, these committees were no better than government-sanctioned mobs. Loyalists were beaten and robbed, “tarred and feathered”, hanged, and at a minimum run out of town. Profiteers grabbed their homes, farms and anything else they could get their hands on.

Connecticut passed laws to ferret out and punish Loyalists. Suspected Loyalists, were given ‘test oaths’— declarations in which an oath-taker promised not to aid the enemy, swore loyalty to the ‘Patriots’, and denounced the Crown. Anyone who failed to take the oath faced imprisonment, confiscation of property, banishment, and even death. Many were hanged throughout the New England colonies.

Loyalists who refused to take the oath did not even have the right of foreigners before the court. They had no way to collect debts and could not be the executor of an estate. Lawyers and doctors who did not take the oath lost the right to practice. Connecticut exiled prominent Loyalists, and expelled them from all offices and levied double or treble taxes on them.

As the war progressed life for Loyalists worsened. All of their properties and belongings were forcibly seized and sold at bargain-basement prices. People who owed debts to Loyalists ignored repayment. Some ‘Patriots’ became rich at the expense of Loyalists who had their property confiscated.

Pushed to the point of being annihilated, the Loyalists fought back during the war by forming some 159 Loyalists regiments, within the British Army, composed of approximately 50,000 fighting men.

The Loyalist refugees fleeing the United States were a diverse group representing many ethnic and racial groups including the Jewish community. The commonality is the persecution they endured until they finally left.

American Historians first incorrectly thought all colonial Jews were Rebels but this is far from true. This conclusion has since been debunked, having been based on limited historical evidence. Research has now shown that, like many religions and cultural groups, Jews were found in both Rebel and Loyalist camps. One challenge in researching Jewish Loyalists: Often they are not identified as Jews in historical documents. Some historians have been forced to make educated guesses based on predominantly-Jewish surnames.

Abraham Florentine, a Jew if Italian origin, was a dry good merchant before the war. He had establishments in New Jersey and in New York City. He was a Loyalist, and at the end of the war he joined the migration northward, settling in Digby, Nova Scotia. He soon left for England to settle his financial claim with the government. He was unsuccessful in this regard, and returned to the United States of America where he appears to have reintegrated himself into American society, a rarity for Loyalists who were usually most unwelcome in their native colonies.

Next week read about more Loyalist Jewish families.

JAR: Cornwallis and the Winter Campaign, January to April 1781

by Ian Saberton 28 April 2020

Leaving Colonel Francis Lord Rawdon to command in the field from Georgetown to Augusta, Lt. Gen. Charles Earl Cornwallis, the British General Officer Commanding in the South, marched from Winnsborough, South Carolina on January 8, 1781 at the start of his second campaign to conquer North Carolina.

By the 18th, the day on which he was joined by Major Gen. Alexander Leslie, Cornwallis had advanced to Turkey Creek. There and then he also received the distressing news that on the previous day Tarleton had come up with Morgan at the Cowpens and been comprehensively defeated in the ensuing battle. All his men were killed or captured apart from 223 officers and men of the British Legion cavalry who fled. The day was lost due partly to the impetuosity of Tarleton but pre-eminently to the superlative generalship of Morgan, who, despite fewer numbers, inferior troops and unpromising terrain, disposed and led his men in a masterly way.

“The late affair,” Cornwallis confessed to Rawdon, “has almost broke my heart.”

Read more.

Book Review: 1774: The Long Year of Revolution

Book by Mary Beth Norton (Knopf, 2020)

Reviewed by Alec D. Rogers 29 April 2020

Although previous works have tried to draw attention to “The Missing 16 Months” between the Boston Tea Party in December of 1773 and the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April of 1775, Cornell history professor Mary Beth Norton argues in her latest work 1774: The Long Year of Revolution that this period has still not received its due recognition. In fact, it was this period during which Americans seriously and in great numbers began to think of themselves as potentially other than loyal British subjects. So much in fact that 1774 has as rightful a claim as 1776 as the year of America’s independence.

Much of the problem, she asserts, is that historians have traditionally focused their attention on only a segment of revolutionaries, particularly those in and around Massachusetts. As a result, the events of 1774 can appear to be just a few more of the inexorable steps between those that commenced in London in 1763 with the Stamp and Navigation Acts and the declaration of American independence thirteen years later. By taking note of other voices, especially those of Loyalists (whose story has been the subject of her earliest research), Norton aims to restore the centrality of the period she labels the “long year of 1774” as that which ultimately separated those Americans who chose to remain loyal from others who envisioned a future separate from London.

Norton opens with an in-depth tale of the colonists’ resistance to the Tea Act and the English attempt to enforce it by landing tea from the East India Company (EIC) in Boston, Charleston, New York, and Philadelphia. The Tea Act was enacted principally to assist the failing East India Company rather than as an attempt to raise revenue or coerce the colonists. In fact, the act lowered the duty on tea, cutting out the London middlemen. But it simultaneously posed a challenge to established colonial interests by replacing those who dealt in tea, both legally imported and its smuggled counterpart, in favor of politically connected consignees who would receive EIC tea under the Tea Act.

Read more.

Where in the World?

Where is Carl Stymiest of Vancouver 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.

From the Twittersphere and Beyond

Additions to the Loyalist Directory

As time permits, we add information to the Loyalist Directory. The latest additions and updates are as follows:

  • Benn Sr, John – contributed by Jo Ann Tuskin
  • John, Peter – contributed by John Noble with certificate application
  • Miller, George – contributed by Carolyn Brown
  • Wing, Gershom – contributed by Gerald Hartley
  • Wright, Musco – contributed by Martin Conroy

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


Disbanded Troops and Loyalists

I have copies of several documents relating to the transfer and settlement of Disbanded Troops and Loyalists in the Royal Townships along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, The documents are dated July and Sept 1784.

A typical one one dated at Montreal, July 1784, indicates men 1568, women 626, children 1492 and servants 90 for a total of 3776 persons settled by July 1784.

Were the men all disbanded troops or were some of the men considered Loyalists?

Many documents seem to incorporate Loyalists with Disbanded troops. Were the others part of the “hierarchy”?

• I assume Loyalists are not considered “troops”?

• I assume the women would be considered Loyalists?

• Is there a good source about this specific subject?

Thanks for any help and guidance.

…Richard Poaps, UE

UE or U.E.

I have a question regarding the employment and configuration of the postnominal letters for the honorific of proven United Empire Loyalist descendants. I notice that UELAC and associated persons using the honorific employ UE. However, I have also seen U.E. I read the configuration identified by Lord Dorchester and it appears to have used U.E.

Which is proper?

• “[name] UE

• “[name], UE

• “[name] U.E.

• “[name], U.E.

…Tom Babcock, UE