TWO LOYALISTS AND A PATRIOT

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. ~ Samuel Adams

Loyalists

Loyalists were American colonists who remained faithful to the British Crown during the Revolutionary War. Also called Tories, Royalists or King's Men, their reasons for supporting England were myriad and complicated. For the most part, Loyalists became pariah during and after the war. Many were hounded to the point that that they were forced to flee their hometowns, either to Tory friendly New York or across the ocean to England.

Given the division created between the Tories and the Patriots, the Revolutionary War might be considered something of a civil war. Choosing sides wasn't always easy. Probably the most famous of those who remained faithful to the crown was Patriot Benjamin Franklin's son, William. William was high profile enough that he was arrested and imprisoned shortly after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.

By that time, the Patriots had gained control of virtually all territory in the Thirteen Colonies and expelled all royal officials. Outspoken Loyalists were subject to having their property consficated and all sorts of public humiliations. Tarring and feathering was just one of many options. To remain in their hometowns, many Loyalists learned to simply keep quiet.

In 2000, historian Robert Calhoon wrote about the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.

After the war, about 15 percent of the Loyalists (65,000–70,000 people) removed themselves from the newly created United States for the more friendly shores of England or Canada. Many of these who chose to leave, however, longed for their lost homes in New England. Thomas Hutchinson, former governor of Massachusetts, settled in London. In one of his letters he wrote that he "had rather die in a little country farm-house in New England than in the best nobleman's seat in old England." Merchant James Clarke, also living in England, wrote that "My Attachment to our native Country is so fervent and sincere that I could freely give up my Life, and Ten Thousand more if I posses them, could I restore dear Rhode Island to its former happy, happy Situation." Saddest of all was Massachusetts merchant Samuel Curwen, who wrote that he would rather endure "insults, reproaches and perhaps a dress of tar and feathers" rather than his present life of exile. He concluded, "Wherever I turn mine eyes I see ruin and misery all around me."

Ben Marsh, a professor of American history at the University of Kent, cousels against judging the Loyalists too harshly. "With the exception of a handful of nasty people," he writes, "much of the rest of the loyalists are quite tragic stories of people whose loyalties, as far as they were concerned, remain pure and stable, but it was the rest of the world that changed.”

Samson French, Loyalist

Our most famous Loyalist relative was, of course, the ill-fated Ebenezer Richardson (4C7X) who shot and killed young Christopher Seider. We wrote about him in our "Ebenezer Richardson" post. We probably had quite a few Loyalist relatives. Most of them probably kept quiet. One of our Loyalist relatives who fell under the category of keeping quiet was cousin Sampson French (4C6X) who was born in Dunstable in 1742. Sampson enlisted in the final French and Indian war when he was only 16. His great-grandson, Salphronius French (7C3X) told family historian Mary E. Beyer that "There is a tradition that the second Sampson went to war on account of friction between him and his step-mother. Whether this be true or not, it is certain that his father went to war at the same time, and she must have been a mighty uncomfortable woman if they preferred the war up near Newfoundland to the war at home."

Samson returned ro Dunstable when he was about twenty and shortly afterwards moved to Southwick, MA close to the Connecticut border.

From a letter written by Salphronius H. French to Mary Beyer:

You ask about the military history of our early ancestor, born 1742. In 1776 he was about thirty-four years old, his son Thomas (5C5X) about three years old, and his son Clement (5C5X) not yet born. Sampson was the only one who could have taken part in the Revolution, and he did not, for the reason that he was at heart a Tory. He did not take up either side actively, but said he thought the war was a mistake and King George's government good enough. My father told me he was drafted twice and each time furnished a substitute, which he could have done as he had considerable property. Some one ought to have punched this particular Sampson in those days, but he was six feet tall and had a red hot temper, so he escaped. But there is something to be said for our Sampson. As we look at it now, a man to be patriotic in 1776 must be willing to help destroy the regular government. In 1861 it was considered patriotic to support and defend the regular government. My own experience leads me to think that serving in the army as a soldier intensifies and renders more permanent attachment to and respect for a regular government. Now our Sampson enlisted in the British army under General Amherst and served in the war between England and France before the Revolution. Perhaps this experience helped color his later opinions.

Jonathan Stickney, Loyalist

Our cousin Jonathan Stickney (3C8X) was born in Rowley in 1745. Maybe because of his Loyalist leanings, he never married. Jonathan's loyalty to the crown may have been cemented when his studies at Harvard college were cut short in 1775. That was the year that the the college turned their campus, based in Cambridge, over to Continental Army.

Whatever his reason for remaining loyal to the crown, Jonathan wasn't shy about making his feelings known. Emotions were running high on April 18, 1775, the eve of the famous battles at Lexington and Concord and Jonathan's wagging tongue only exacerbated the tension. And so it was that Jonathan Stickney was arrested and, on April 18, brought before the General Court. Their decision was quick and sharp:

To the Keeper of Ipswich Jail: You are ordered to receive into your custody Jonathan Stickney Jr., who has been apprehended by the Committee of Inspection, Correspondence and Safety of the Town of Rowley and sent to the General Court for having in the most open and daring manner endeavored according to the utmost of his abilities to encourage & introduce Discontent, Sedition, and a Spirit of Disobedience to all lawful authority among the people by frequently clamoring in the most impudent insulting and abusive Language against the American Congress, the General Court of this Colony and others who have been exerting themselves to save the Country from Misery & Ruin all which is made fully to appear.

You are therefore to keep him safely in close confinement (in a Room by himself & that he be not allowed the use of pens, ink nor paper, and not suffer him to converse with any person whatever unless in your hearing) till the further order of the General Court or he be otherwise discharged by due course of Law.

—-In the Name and by the order of the Council and House of Representatives John Lowell, Dep. Sec. Council Chambers April 18, 1776.

It did not go well for Jonathan at his trial. One witness testified that Jonathan Stickney declared "he would not fight on either side, but if compelled to choose he would fight for the King; and that he thought the general Court the most ignorant body of men God ever permitted to transact so important business." A second witness stated that Jonathan called the Contintal Congress "a pack of rascally villains." A third said that he declared "that most of the Colonies had rebelled without any provocation; that he wished the leaders of the rebellion might become turnspits to the nobility of england; and that those who destroyed the tea were damned rascals." And, finally, a fourth witness said that Jonathon professed that "he should be glad to see the blood streaming from the hearts of the authors of the difficulties etc etc."

Jonathan, after submitting a petition to the legislature, was eventually released. There were conditions, however. He was required to pay the costs of his arrest and imprisonment and, further, he had to give "a free and full promise to observe, for the future, strict decorum in his words and actions, and otherwise demean himself as a good citizen."

Jonathan never acted against his country. He was arrested and imprisoned merely for expressing his views, however distasteful they might have been. After his release, Jonathan left Rowly for the British held New York. Nothing was heard of him after that. It is assumed that he died in New York.

Tristram Dalton, Patriot

Our cousin Tristram Dalton (2C8X), a staunch Patriot, was the other side of the coin to Cousin Sampson French. We wrote a little about about Tristram's privateering enterprises in our "Privateering" post. Tristram was born in Newburyport in 1738. He was the son of a ship captain and merchant, Michael Dalton (1C9X), who engaged in trade with Europe and the West Indies. Michael amassed quite a fortune and when he died he left his entire estate to his only child Tristram who became one of Newburyport's leading citizens.

Tristram graduated from Harvard in 1755. John Adams, future president of the United States, graduated from Harvard that same year. Tristram and Adams became friends while in college and carried on correspondence throughout most of their lives. Below is a portrait of Tristram painted by Joseph Blackburn around the time of his graduation:

In 1888, well after Tristram's death, a sketch of him was read by U.S. Representative Eben F. Stone before the members of the Essex Institute at Salem:

There is a portrait of him in the possession of his great-granddaughter, taken when he was eighteen years of age, just after he graduated, which is supposed to have been painted by Blackburn. It appears from this that he was tall and well-formed, with a fine, clear complexion and a smooth, open brow. He had full, dark eyes, rather a long nose, and a firm, well-set mouth and chin. The general expression of his face is open and intelligent. His dress, after the fashion of the time, short clothes and knee-breeches: coat with standing collar and deep, broad lapels faced with silk; white satin waistcoat, cut deep and long; ruffled shirt bosom and deep lace cuffs; his hair tied in a queue and puffed on each side: all this gives such an appearance of age and dignity to the figure that it is difficult to believe it is the portrait of one so young. In the latter part of his life his figure was very striking and imposing. It has been said by one who saw him about 1816, in Newburyport, that he was then perfectly erect and firm, with a florid complexion, white hair, and a fine presence. He was fond of music, and, when young, played on the flute. He was a fine specimen of the gentleman of the old school. Naturally refined, fond of literature, easy, affable, and dignified in his manner, he was well fitted to take a leading part in the best of New England society, as it was constituted in the colonial era. From the time his father died until he was elected to the Senate in 1788 he maintained at his mansion on State Street, in Newburyport, and at his country seat at Pipe Stave Hill, a most generous hospitality.

Even before the revolution, Tristram was actively interested in public affairs. He served on many committees and was instrumental in helping to improve the public school system in Newburyport.

In 1774, Tristram was one of the delegates to the Provincial congress and, in 1776, he was elected as a representative to the General Court. During the war he was an ardent and patriotic supporter of the continental government. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, he sent the following letter to his long-time friend Elbridge Gerry, a founding father and fifth vice-president of the United States under James Madison.

Dear Sir: I wish you joy on the late Declaration, an event so ardently desired by your good self and the people you particularly represent. We are no longer to be amused with delusive prospects. The die is cast. All is at stake. The way is made plain. No one can now doubt on which side it is his duty to act. We have everything to hope from the goodness of our cause. The God of justice is omnipotent. We are not to fear what man or multitude can do. We have put on the harness, and I trust it will not be put off until we see our land of security and freedom, the wonder of the other hemisphere, the asylum of all who pant for deliverance from bondage.

Wishing every blessing to attend you, I am dear sir with great regard, Your Obd' Sir,

Tristram Dalton

We'll have more on Cousin Tristram's fortunes and misfortunes in a future post.