In this issue:

Connect with us:


UELAC Dorchester Award for 2022
The UELAC Dorchester Award, established October 2007 by Dominion Council, exemplifies Volunteer Excellence and Participation, by conferring recognition on recipients for their lengthy contribution to the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada. Exclusive to the UELAC membership, this award salutes the “best in volunteerism” amongst our members within the Association.

This year’s recipient is none other than our Dominion Genealogist, Angela Walt Johnson UE.
Angela was the Toronto Branch President in 2000; a Committee member for the book, “Loyalist Lineages Vol. 2,” and an Executive member of the branch for several years.
After moving to the Quinte area, she served as the Bay of Quinte Branch’s Genealogist (circa) 2010 – 2016, and as Branch Vice President for several years. Currently, Angela is the Bay of Quinte Branch President. She is also on the Parks Board and as well, a Trustee of the Old Hay Bay Church.
At the National level, Angela was Dominion Secretary 1989 – 1991; one of the three genealogists 1991 – 1992, Co-Dominion Genealogist 1993 – 1998, and again from 2016 to present. The UELAC Board of Directors are most appreciative of her voluminous record for UE certificate approvals.
With this record of service to the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada, Angela Walt Johnson UE is a most deserving recipient for this prestigious volunteer recognition award.
….Carl Stymiest UE
See the list of recipients with photo.

Scholarship Challenge 2022: Multiplying UE Scholar Opportunities
Thank you for the strong interest shown in the UELAC Scholarship Fund since last week’s announcement. The Scholarship Challenge 2022 is called Multiplying UE Scholar Opportunities and will run until August 22, 2022 with updates in Loyalist Trails and on the UELAC website In the near future. Please donate and watch our success as we meet the challenge goal of $8088.
This week I want to highlight the two 2022 Scholarship recipients – Sarah Beth Gable and Nicole Hughes – by directing your attention to their biographies as posted at Scholars.
And, while you are there, read about Benjamin Anderson, our 2021 Scholarship recipient. He is currently in Virginia doing research that was on hold during the pandemic when he could not leave his home in Scotland.
We wish all three scholars a productive summer.
Christine E. Manzer UE, Scholarship Committee,

NOTE: Online donations to UELAC have been offered by going to CanadaHelps. A donation can now be made online right from Scholarship Challenge 2022 where you will see the form. The form is from CanadaHelps which continues to handle all the necessary security – in fact, if you have an account at CanadaHelps with the same email address, you will be offered the opportunity to enter your password and it completes the form for you. UELAC never sees and has no access to the credit card information.

Samuel Moore, a Loyalist Quaker
copyright Stephen Davidson UE
Loyalist history can often be found hidden away in the genealogies of Patriots. When Thomas Cornell wrote about his ancestors in 1890, he had to admit to having a Loyalist in the family tree — a Loyalist Quaker who initially made Nova Scotia his home. Despite the fact that his ancestor became very prosperous in his land of refuge, Cornell decided to record only one story about how the Loyalists fared as they settled in the Annapolis Valley. While the author may have been trying to demonstrate what a mistake it was for his ancestor to have remained loyal to the crown, the incident he cites nevertheless reveals a lost bit of Loyalist history.
The only traditions that have reached me of the farm life in Nova Scotia are that it was a rugged one. In illustration, it was said to be the custom, when the women as well as the men worked in the summer hay fields, to take the children into the fields with them; and the baby was provided with a piece of pork, tied by a strong cord to its own foot, in order that if the child, when left alone should choke itself with the pork, its struggles would remove the difficulty.”
Cornell’s Loyalist ancestor was Samuel Moore, a Quaker who lived in Woodbridge, New Jersey at the outset of the American Revolution. Local rebels imprisoned him on a number of occasions because he would not sign oath of allegiance to the new republic or take “part with the rebels”.
Finally, in June of 1777, Moore sought refuge in New York City because he “could not bear the treatment he suffered from the Americans”. His wife Rachel (Stone) and their six children (Sarah, Joseph, Crowell, Phebe, Rachel, and Elias) joined him in September. They had been “forced out of their house, put on a wagon, and sent to British lines at Amboy. Little Elias Moore would have been just under two years old at the time; his oldest sister Sarah was 13.
A year later, New Jersey’s rebels charged Moore with “joining the army of the King of Great Britain”. The state’s Commission for the Sale of Forfeited Property seized the Moore farm in 1779. For the next six years, the Quaker family lived in a refugee camp within British lines, during which time their sons Enoch and John were born.
At the age of 41, Samuel Moore’s life took a dramatic turn as he and his family boarded a Loyalist evacuation vessel and set sail for Annapolis Royal on Nova Scotia’s western shore. Rachel, who was pregnant with their 9th child, must have found the two-week journey to have been a difficult one. Things would not get better upon arrival.
Approximately 2,500 Loyalists flooded into Annapolis Royal in 1783 — in addition to those who had first found sanctuary there in 1782. There were desperate housing shortages, compelling the loyal refugees to seek shelter in the local church, the courthouse, and stores. The Anglican pastor for the area noted, “Hundreds of people of education and refinement have no shelter whatever”.
As it turned out, the Moores were not the only Quakers among the Loyalists who arrived in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Scores of families became refugees. They were later visited in 1786 by Joseph Moore (Samuel’s brother) and several other Quakers to see how their fellow Friends were faring in their land of refuge.
One such refugee Friend was Samuel Smith. He not only had attended Quaker worship services with the Moore family in Rahway, New Jersey, he had also become their neighbor in Nova Scotia. While the British appreciated his intelligence on the movements of the Continental Army, local Patriots arrested Smith when they suspected that he was supplying the enemy with provisions. Smith escaped from prison, remaining within British lines until the end of the war. Captain Cameron of the 37th Regiment wrote a testimonial on the Quaker’s behalf, noting that he was “an active, zealous loyalist … and that the greatest reliance was laid upon his information.”
However, his Quaker congregation in New Jersey had “disowned” Smith for “being concerned in the late war”. Although pacifism is a basic tenant of the Quaker faith, the pressure from their Patriot neighbours, either compelled many Friends to take an oath of allegiance to the new republic or retaliate against rebel violence by siding with the British Consequently, many Friends were “disowned” by their fellow Quakers for having “gone into the British army”, taking an oath of allegiance to the Patriot cause, “going into military service” or for “military training”.
In January of 1786, Samuel Moore journeyed to Halifax to stand before the Royal Commission on the Losses and Services of American Loyalists to seek redress for his lost property. He claimed a loss of £1588, but only received £530 pounds sterling. Moore was one of at least a dozen Quakers who came before the compensation board. Pacifists though those Quakers may have been, the RCLSAL determined that they were Loyalists and compensated them to the same degree as other refugees.
In addition to a trip to Halifax and a visit from his brother, Samuel would remember 1786 as the birth year of his 10th child, Edward Moore. Two years later, Lindley Murray Moore, the last of the Quaker’s children was born. As well as watching his parents carve a farm out of the forests of the Annapolis Valley, Lindley would also have witnessed his father’s growing leadership of the refugee Quaker community.
By the time he had turned 67, Samuel Moore owned a number of properties in Wilmot Township. He eventually sold his Nova Scotia land and began to buy land along the shore of Lake Erie in Upper Canada. In the early years of the War of 1812, the family decided to move to the area between Simcoe and St. Thomas. They went through New Jersey on their trek west. While in their former home, Rachel Moore died; several of her children decided to stay behind in the United States, including Lindley.
Samuel settled in Norwich, but held land in Charlotteville, Norwich, Yarmouth and Malahide Townships. His children made homes for themselves in the nearby counties of Norfolk and Elgin. Samuel died at the age of 80 in 1822, having been a Loyalist refugee for more than half of his life. He had the distinction of being the first to be buried in what is now known as Norwich’s Pioneer Cemetery, the graveyard of its Quaker settlers. However, his legacy would be more than that of a prosperous farmer who never wavered in his faith.

Donna Moore, a family historian, summed up Samuel’s life with these words, “His children’s families remained in the vicinity, some becoming leaders in their communities and getting involved in the politics of the day. The Rebellion of 1837, led by the Reformers, who included many of Samuel’s sons and grandsons, changed the nature of politics and the social order of Upper Canada and affected the lives of many of Samuel’s descendants.”

To secure permission to reprint this article contact the author at

Incidents in Early History of New Brunswick
By J. W. Lawrence
At the close of the American Revolution, Sir Guy Carleton, Commander-in-chief at New York, was waited on by the Rev. Samuel Seabury, D. D., and Col. Benjamin Thompson, King’s American Dragoons, on behalf of Loyalists desirous of going to Nova Scotia, when it was agreed —

  1. They be provided with proper vessels to carry them, their horses and cattle, as near as possible to the place appointed for the settlers in Nova Scotia.
  2. That, beside provision for the voyage, one year’s provision be also allowed, or money to enable them to purchase.
  3. That allowance of warm clothing be made, in proportion to the wants of each family.
  4. That an allowance of medicine be granted.
  5. That pairs of mill-stones, necessary iron work for grist mills, and other necessary articles for saw mills, be granted.
  6. That a quantity of nails, spikes, hoes, axes, spades, shovels, plough irons, and such other farming utensils as shall appear necessary, be provided for them; and also a proportion of window glass.
  7. That tracts of land, free from disputed titles, and conveniently situated, be granted, surveyed and divided at public cost, as shall afford from three hundred to six hundred acres of land to each family.
  8. That over and above, two thousand acres in every Township be allowed for the support of a Clergyman, and one thousand acres for the support of a School, and these lands be unalienable forever.
  9. That a sufficient number of good muskets and cannon be allowed, with proper quantity of powder and ball for their use, to enable them to defend themselves against any hostile invasion.

The Loyalists received a lot, with five hundred feet of boards, shingles, and bricks. Most of the erections, at first, were log houses; the lumber for roofing. The distribution was under the direction of Major Studholm {in what is now Saint John, New Brunswick}: 1,664,110 feet of boards, and 1,449,919 shingles were given. After the lines of the streets were run, the trees were cut; the stumps, in many places, were not removed for years. Carting between the Upper and Lower Cove was along the shore: provisions from the beach had to be carried to the dwellings on the back. The only article to hand was firewood, from the lots and streets. The British Government allowed the Loyalists and their families provisions for the first year; two-thirds for the second; and one-third for the third year.

King’s County NB Memories
From the King’s County Historical Society, 2008
Submitted by Barb Pearson UE
For nineteen years after their Arrival in 1783, the Loyalist parents attempted to educate their children amidst their own struggle to build a new home in the New Brunswick wilderness. These parents who arrived in exile from the 13 colonies were men and women from all walks of life. Most were farmers but the range of occupations listed as “freemen” of the city of Saint John included artisans and school-masters. A few were Harvard graduates, but the majority of Loyalists were not well-educated. Basic survival for the family was their prime concern.
The first of the school masters in Kings County of whom any record has been preserved were employed by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. They were supported by a grant from the Society of 10 lb sterling per annum with additional help that the local people could provide.
Governor Sir Guy Carleton urged the provincial government to establish more schools, but it wasn’t until 1802 that the first Schools Act was passed in the House of Assembly in Fredericton. The Act allocated 10 lb per parish to the justices of peace in each county to encourage the building of schools. Thus ensued a crude beginning of a public school system. Kings County then consisted of seven parishes. Read more…

THE KING’S COLOUR: Slavery on the St. Lawrence.
by Stuart Manson June 2022
The June 2022 issue of The King’s Colour has been published.
Titled “Slavery on the St. Lawrence.” Rachel Londonderry, a black child, the property of Captain William Fraser of Edwardsburgh, was born on the 1st March & baptized on the 8th June.” In 1798, these unpleasant words were written in the baptismal register of Rev. John Bethune.
The Broadside can be accessed on The King’s Colour page.
Visit Stuart’s website for more details about Stuart and his services.

JAR: The Articles of Confederation and Western Expansion
by Richard J. Werther 14 June 2022
The Articles of Confederation described the first government of the new United States. As one may imagine from understanding the later debates on the Constitution in 1787, there were a number of points of contention on the Articles that were later re-argued for the Constitution. But there was one issue in the debate on the Articles that would ultimately play a significant role in the way the United States coalesced and grew. It did not have to be “re-litigated” when the Constitution was debated. The issue was the disposition of the continent’s western lands, those lands beyond the recognized borders of the British colonies. Who would own them, and how would they be managed? Despite all their failures, the settlement of the western lands question would become the most enduring contribution of the Articles of Confederation…
…This brings us to our main event —the debates over western land holdings. This is where things bogged down, at least for one state. The new lands acquired in the 1783 Treaty of Paris represented a vast territory stretching from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River between the southern shores of the Great Lakes and Spanish Florida. To whom did these lands belong? Initially seven states claimed them based on old colonial grants and Indian treaties: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. These states supported this stance by claiming that the state of war with Britain meant that their borders reverted to those specified by their original colonial charters, which were expansive although still limited by the proclamation line of 1763 which limited expansion to the Appalachians. Many of these state claims were overlapping. The other six states had no claims beyond their existing boundaries. Termed “landless” states, they feared that the other states, enlarged by western territories, would become economically and politically dominant.
The landless states wanted the Articles to stipulate that Congress limit the boundaries of those states claiming western lands. Under their proposal, Congress would take ownership of the western lands and sell off them off, using the money to benefit all by paying off war debts. Read more…

JAR: George III’s (Implicit) Sanction of the American Revolution
by M. Andrew Holowchak 16 June 2022
In Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774), Jefferson wrote of King George III’s unwillingness to use his “negative” to veto unjust proposals. Two years later, Jefferson echoed this sentiment in his first draft of Declaration of Independence. Here, Jefferson listed a “long train of abuses & usurpations,” at the hand of King George III. Those, he added, were “begun at a distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object.” Those abuses were indicative of “arbitrary power,” and he considered it the right, even duty, of those oppressed to throw off such discretionary abuse of authority and establish a new government, by consent of the people, in accordance of the will of the people.
The abuses Jefferson delineated in his draft of the Declaration are many, at least twenty-five, some complaints listed being compound claims. The last, and that to which he devoted the most ink, was the introduction of slavery into the colonies. Read more…

MHS: Weapons from the Battlefield – The Battle of Bunker Hill
By Heather Rockwood 27 April 2022
A few years ago, the MHS was in the news following the discovery and donation of a historically important sword…
…the Battle of Bunker Hill (or Breed’s Hill) occurred on Saturday, 17 June 1775. In this battle, colonial militiamen used the cover of night to create a redoubt on Breed’s Hill and to fortify lines across the Charlestown peninsula. British soldiers woke to find the colonials positioned exactly where they intended to establish their own fortifications. Although the colonials lost the battle that followed, they proved that militiamen could fight just as well as trained soldiers, for the British regiment suffered far more casualties than the colonials. The battle demonstrated that the British army needed to plan better for its next attacks.
This plaque and two swords represent an interesting piece of Bunker Hill history. The two swords never touched in battle, although they were on opposite sides of the war. The colonial’s Col. William Prescott was directed by Gen. Artemas Ward to fortify Bunker Hill, and he led the battle on 17 June. Britain’s Cap. John Linzee, famed for his role in the Gaspee Affair, anchored off Moulton’s Point on the Falcon to cover the landing of the British Troops in Charlestown. Although Prescott’s sword was worn in battle, Linzee’s was his dress sword. After the war, the swords became heirlooms in both families all living in Massachusetts, Linzee had married Susan Inman in 1772. But this story takes a turn! Read more…

All Things Georgian: A History of Child Maintenance
By Sarah Murden, 13 June 2022
Throughout history, the payment of child support has been a recurring issue, though the policies applied by either the church or government have been remarkably similar.
Early records reveal that even if the father of a child was not known, the parish would still support the mother by payment of ‘Poore Reliefe’. This payment (typically very low) was raised from a tax upon the parish residents, and the church would then seek a contribution from the father or family member to mitigate the cost. In medieval England, canon law placed all parents under a duty to support their legitimate children, but later, the duty to provide for ‘bastard’ children was introduced through various ‘Old Poor Laws’ which aimed to provide better relief to the mother of the child or those in need. Read more…

LAC: Were My Ancestors UEL?
Library and Archives Canada Blog
In the most recent post at The Discover Blog, Sara Chatfield describes her first encounter with the acronym, and goes on to describe some of the records held at LAC that can help answer the question. Read the post here…

Response to Query: Land Grants vs Land Warrants vs Escheats
I have copied Annapolis County, and have a question about how they are listed. The majority are listed as Land Grants. However, there are also a large number of “Land Warrants” and of “Escheats“.
Can someone tell me what the difference is one from another for those three?

A summary of a number of responses:
I received several replies about Grants, Warrants and Escheats. I will list all Grants and Warrants.

  • Escheats just means that the government took the land back, usually because the person never settled on that land, never did the necessary improvements, etc..
  • Grants means that the land was actually granted.
  • Warrants are when a Land Petition is approved, but the land has not yet been actually granted.

So Grants and Warrants mean that the person met the criteria to be a Loyalist. That is why I will be listing both Grants and Warrants.
Lynton (Bill) Stewart

UELAC Loyalist Directory: New Entries
Entries which have been added, or revised, this week, with thanks:

  • Thanks to Lynton (Bill) Stewart who submitted a batch of almost one hundred new entries. The basic details come from Loyalists and Land Settlement in Nova Scotia, Cumberland County Grants, pp. 38-42, Public Archives of Nova Scotia. The additional sources he had used for previous submissions had no information for these. See this example of the Loyalists submitted in this batch

If you are willing to submit some information, send a note to
All help is appreciated. …doug

From the Twittersphere and Beyond

  • There is an excellent First Nations Exhibit on display at DesBrisay Museum in Bridgewater, NS which was developed in partnership with the Native Council of Nova Scotia Zone 5. It includes information on history & culture of Mi’kmaq Nation as well as treaties. DesBrisay Museum
  • Porcupine Cradle made in 19th century by Mikmaq artist Christianna Morris. She also made some items as gifts for Queen Victoria and became known as the “quillworker to Her Majesty the Queen”. It is on display in DesBrisay Museum in Bridgewater. (Thanks Brian McConnell UE)
  • War of 1812 Cemetery in Kingsville, Ontario. Augustine Pioneer Cemetery.
  • Made visit yesterday to monument at Round Hill, Annapolis County, NS to Pierre Thibaudeau (1631 -1704) who was first European settler in area & erected a grist mill. See short video. (Brian McConnell UE)
  • This week in History
  • Clothing and Related:
    • A sumptuous French fan, ca. 1780, the leaf painted with Hercules & Omphale. ‘Signalling his subjugation, Hercules carries a distaff for spinning yarn whilst Omphale carries his trademark club’
    • Lady’s hat: Bergère, ca. 1770
    • Cherry red silk spencer with muslin petticoat, 1790s. The Spencer is trimmed with white flybraid and lined in red and white checked cotton. The petticoat is embroidered with silver sprigs and has hooks that match the eyes on the jacket.
    • 18th Century dress and matching petticoat, 1780-85 (altered c.1900) The restraint in decoration illustrates the growing influence of the Neo-classical style in textile design
    • 18th Century stomacher, a front portion that attaches and closes an open gown, silk embroidered with flowers and leaves, 1720-1760
    • Detail from men’s 18th Century waistcoat of monkeys collecting fruit, I’m enjoying the symbolism of this on the pocket!
    • Rear view of an expanse of fine silk embroidery on an 18th Century men’s Court coat, French, 1780-1790
  • Townsends:


Published by the UELAC
If you do not now receive this free newsletter directly but would like to, you can subscribe here.