Writing in Liberty’s Exiles, Maya Jasanoff argued that the Loyalist Claims Commission was a useful—perhaps the most useful—source available for scholars working on loyalists. They are indeed useful, offering thousands of biographical snippets of
Writing in Liberty’s Exiles, Maya Jasanoff argued that the Loyalist Claims Commission was a useful—perhaps the most useful—source available for scholars working on loyalists. They are indeed useful, offering thousands of biographical snippets of a wide range of individuals. Most scholars have used the claims, in some capacity.
But, alongside the claims, there are other sources out there that offer a different, less biased insight into loyalists during the American Revolution. In this post, after a brief discussion of “signing” prior to 1776 and with a particular focus on New York, I will discuss the historical uses of loyalist petitions and oaths of allegiance to King George III.
It doesn’t take long to sign a piece of paper. A flick of the pen. A transitory introduction of ink with paper, forever etching a combination of letters together with a contract, an idea, or a statement. Even though it didn’t take long, there could be long-term consequences for signing a piece of paper. Indeed, once a name hit the page, the cloud of anonymity was lifted. Political views could no longer be hidden from view.
Prior to and during the American Revolution, signing subscription lists or petitions was an important barometer of an individual’s or a group’s political persuasion(s). On multiple occasions, between 1765 and 1776, the difference between a “signer” and a “non-signer” were significant; it often marked the distinction between those who were “for” something and those who were “against” something.
Among the most recognized instances of “signing” relating to Revolutionary America relate to nonimportation lists. In many of Britain’s North American colonies inhabitants banded together to affix their name to a nonimportation agreement. On multiple occasions, men and women came together to articulate their opposition of various measures introduced by Parliament by signing their names.
It was much the same by the start of the War for American Independence. Committees of Safety, organized as a consequence of the Continental Association (October 20, 1774), patrolled towns, villages, and cities looking for signatories to the Association. Those who didn’t sign it were often subject to physical attack or public censure. But it wasn’t just America’s patriots who used names to legitimize their cause, numbers, and objectives. Loyalists did it, too. In fact, in the early years of the War, especially in New York between 1775 and 1778, declarations, oaths, and petitions played an important role in loyalists’ strategy. By signing lists, as Charles Inglis noted, prominent loyalists wanted to “quicken others by Our Example.”
On April 11, 1775, a hot debate took place in Westchester County, N.Y. The debate related to the election of delegates to an extra-legal convention, due to meet in New York seven days later. Two groups had formed in Westchester. One, led by assemblyman Frederick Philipse, Rev. Samuel Seabury, and Rev. Isaac Wilkins, opposed such a delegation; it was extra-institutional, they argued, and would subvert the rights and authority of the popularly elected General Assembly. The other group, led by Lewis Morris, were for the appointment of delegates. The two groups clashed. Philipse’s group declared they would “Design a PROTEST against all such disorderly Proceedings” and reaffirm their allegiance to King George III. These “Friends to Government” did this by signing their name to a document, a declaration, that “acknowledge[d] no Representatives but the General Assembly.” Over the course of a single afternoon, 312 New Yorkers, including Philipse, Seabury, and Wilkins, signed their names. This “Westchester Declaration” was soon published in the press. These individuals were among the first loyalists to emerge in New York. Against the Continental Congress and a so-called Provincial Congress, they coalesced to articulate their disdain for the illegitimacy of such institutions.
Over the next three years, thousands of New Yorkers signed lists just like the Westchester Declaration. They were administered oaths of allegiance, as well. Thus far, I have found declarations and petitions from various counties in New York, including Charlotte, Kings, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, Tryon, and Westchester. And, of course, I have found various declarations from New York City. Alongside these, between 1776 and 1778, New York’s royal governor, William Tryon, administered the oath of allegiance to the inhabitants of New York City, Kings County, and Suffolk County. The oaths from New York and Suffolk are in The National Archives, Kew. The oath of allegiance administered to Kings County’s residents is in the papers of Sir Henry Clinton at the William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan.
These documents are one of the most underused collections relating to loyalists. Most important, they do not contain the inherent weaknesses that the claims do. By the very nature of a petition or oath, there is no emotional investment in them. Unlike the claims, they cannot be embellished. The documents’ historiographical neglect is surprising; they have so much to offer. For example, the lists relating to New York City could be used to identify people who moved to New York, after the British occupation began, in fall 1776. The oath of allegiance for Kings County could be used for a social history, offering a unique insight into its (largely Dutch) inhabitants. More ambitiously, though, would be a study of these documents vis-à-vis the loyalist diaspora. That is to say, of those who signed these lists, 