Transcriber's Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

HISTORY
OF THE
Settlement of Upper Canada,
(ONTARIO,)
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
THE BAY QUINTÉ.

BY

WM. CANNIFF, M.D., M.R.C.S.E.,

PROFESSOR OF SURGERY UNIVERSITY VICTORIA COLLEGE, AUTHOR OF THE “PRINCIPLES OF SURGERY.”

TORONTO:

DUDLEY & BURNS, PRINTERS, VICTORIA HALL.

1869.

TO

THE HONORABLE

SIR JOHN ALEXANDER MACDONALD, K.C.B., D.C.L., M.P.,

PREMIER OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA,

THIS VOLUME IS BY PERMISSION RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,

AS

A RECOGNITION OF HIS ABILITIES AS A CANADIAN STATESMAN, AND AS A TRIBUTE TO A LONG STANDING INHABITANT OF BAY QUINTÉ, WHO HAS GIVEN HIS TALENTS AND ENERGIES TO LAY A SURE FOUNDATION FOR “A GREAT NORTHERN NATION.”

BY HIS RESPECTFUL ADMIRER,

WILLIAM CANNIFF.

PREFACE.

In the year 1861 a meeting was convened at the Education Office, Toronto, with the view of establishing an Historical Society for Upper Canada. The writer, as an Upper Canadian by birth, and deeply interested in his country with respect to the past as well as the future, was present. The result of that meeting was the appointment of a Committee to frame a Constitution and By-Laws, and take the necessary steps to organize the proposed Society, and to report three weeks thereafter.

The Committee consisted of the Hon. Mr. Merritt, Rev. Dr. Ryerson, Col. Jarvis, Mr. DeGrassi, Mr. Merritt, J. J. Hodgins, Dr. Canniff and Mr. Coventry. For reasons unknown to the writer, this Committee never even met. The following year the writer received a printed circular respecting an “Historical Society of Upper Canada” which had been established at St. Catharines, of which Col. John Clarke, of Port Dalhousie, was President; Hon. Wm. H. Merritt, Vice-President, and George Coventry, of Cobourg, Secretary.

“HONORARY MEMBERS.”

“Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, Bart.,

Colonel Jarvis, Toronto,

Doctor Canniff, Toronto,

Henry Eccles, Esq., Q.C.,

William H. Kittson, Esq., Hamilton,

Henry Ruttan, Esq., Cobourg,

The Venerable Lord Bishop of Toronto,

Alfio DeGrassi, Esq., Toronto,

J. P. Merritt, St. Catharines,

Thomas C. Keefer, Esq., Yorkville,

Hon. George S. Boulton, Cobourg,

David, Burn, Esq., Cobourg.”

At the request of this Society the writer undertook to prepare a Paper upon the Settlement of the Bay Quinté. Having been induced to take up his abode for a time at Belleville, near which he was born, the writer availed himself of every opportunity he could create while engaged in his professional duties, during a period of five years, to collect facts pertaining to the subject. After some months of labor, he was advised by friends, in whose judgment he had confidence, to write a History of the Bay Quinté, for publication.

Acting upon this advice, he continued, with increased energy, to collect and elaborate material. In carrying out this object, he not only visited different sections of the country and many individuals, but consulted the libraries at Toronto and Ottawa, as well as availed himself of the private libraries of kind friends, especially Canniff Haight, Esq., of Picton. As the writer proceeded in his work, he found the subject assuming more extended proportions than he had anticipated. He found that, to write an account of the Settlement of the Bay Quinté, was to pen a history of the settlement of the Province. Finally, he has been induced to designate the work “A History of the Settlement of Upper Canada.”

The labor, time and thought which has been given to the subject need not to be dwelt upon. Every effort has been made, consistent with professional duties, upon which the writer’s family is dependent, to sift a mass of promiscuous material which has come under investigation, so that grains of truth alone might fill the measure which this volume represents.

Various sources of information have been duly indicated in the text; but there are a large number of individuals, from whom information has been obtained, whose names could not be recalled.

This work has been one of love as well as labor; yet time and again the writer would have relinquished it had it not been for the words of encouragement, volunteered by his friends.

The writer has explained the cause of his writing this volume. He now presents it to the reader—​to Canadians—​to the world. He loves his country so well, that he regrets an abler pen had not undertaken the task, that justice might be more fully done to the worthy.

Fault may be found because of repeated and earnest protests against the attitude assumed by the United States: the comments made in respect to their history: the contrast drawn upon the subject of Liberty and Freedom. The writer offers no excuse. He has endeavored to adhere to truth. It is true these pages have been written during a period of great irritation to Canadians, from the hostile and aggressive spirit which the United States have displayed towards us; but a record has been made which, it is trusted, will stand the test of the closest examination.

As to the work, apart from its historical character, no remark is offered, except that the writer is perfectly conscious of errors and imperfections. Time has not been allowed to polish; and while the pages have been going through the press, other necessary duties have prevented that close and undivided attention which the work demanded. But subscribers to the volume were urgent in their requests to have the work without further delays. The reader is referred to a page of Errata.

A concluding chapter it has been found necessary to omit, in consequence of the size already attained. In this it was intended to discuss the future prospects of the Dominion. The writer has unbounded faith in the Confederation scheme. Before this scheme was initiated, the writer, in a lecture delivered to a Toronto audience, uttered these words. Pointing out the elements which constitute the fabric of a great nation, he remarked that he “loved to contemplate the future, when all the British American Provinces would be consolidated into a grand whole; when, from the summit of the Rocky Mountains, would be seen—​to the East along the magnificent lakes and river to the Atlantic, and down the western slopes to the Pacific—​the ceaseless industry of the Canadian beaver, and the evergreen Maple Leaf overshadowing the peaceful homes of Canada.” The prospects now are far brighter than when those words were spoken; and notwithstanding the obstacles—​an unpatriotic company of Englishmen, the unscrupulous designs of covetous Americans, and the apathy of the British Government—​the belief is broad and strong that the dream of the future will be realized. There is life in the tree whose seed was planted eighty years ago, and as it has in the past continued to grow, so it will in the future.

In concluding these prefatory remarks, we desire to tender our thanks to all who have assisted us directly or indirectly, by supplying information, and by encouraging words. Particularly we thank those gentlemen who gave their names as subscribers, some of them voluntarily, years ago, before the work was fairly commenced; also the Hon. Lewis Wallbridge, for procuring for us, when Speaker, copies of manuscript in the Parliamentary Library, at Ottawa.

Finally, we express our obligations to the Publishers and Printers.

Toronto, 27th March, 1869.

[Copy Right secured.]

CONTENTS.

ERRATA.

Page [29], 12th line from top, instead of “1859,” read “1759.”

Page [80], 4th line from bottom, instead of “are equally,” read “were equally.”

Page [102], 16th line from bottom, instead of “removed to the town,” read “to the fifth town.”

Page [104], instead of “Hodgins,” read “Hudgins.”

Page [104], 16th line from top, instead of “1859,” read “1809.”

Page [130], 4th line, 2nd paragraph, instead of “South,” read “North.”

Page [138], heading of page should be “Voyaging.”

Page [192], bottom line, instead of “dispersed,” read “dispossessed.”

Page [257], 19th line, “gloomy,” read “glowing.”

Page [288], 19th line, “glowing a picture,” should have “of” following.

Page [293], instead of “Wesleyanism,” read “Wesleyans.”

Page [371], 14th line, instead of “1815,” read “1615.”

Page [437], 10th line from bottom, instead of “Lawer,” read “Lawyer.”

Page [585], 15th line, after “Governor,” read they were generally.

Page [596], 3rd line, after “often,” read inferior.

HISTORY

OF

THE SETTLEMENT OF UPPER CANADA,

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE BAY OF QUINTÉ.

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.
A SKETCH OF FRANCO-CANADIAN HISTORY.

Contents—​Antiquarianism—​Records of the Early Nations—​Tradition—​The Press—​The Eastern World—​The Western World—​Importance of History—​Columbus—​Colonization—​Canada—​America—​Cartier—​French Canadian writers—​Cartier’s first visit—​Huguenots—​Cartier’s second visit—​Jean Francois—​Sir George E. Cartier—​Establishment of the Fur Trade—​Champlain—​Discovery of Lake Ontario—​Bay of Quinté—​Quebec founded—​First fighting with Indians—​First taking of Quebec by the British—​Returned to France—​The Recollets and Jesuits—​Death of Champlain—​Foundation of Montreal—​Emigration from France—​The Carignan Regiment—​DeCourcelle—​Proposal to found a Fort at Lake Ontario—​Frontenac—​Fort at Cataraqui—​La Salle—​Fort at Niagara—​First vessel upon the Lakes—​Its fate—​Death of La Salle, the first settler of Upper Canada—​Founder of Louisiana—​Discoverer of the mouth of the Mississippi.

There exists, as one characteristic of the nineteenth century, an earnest desire on the part of many to recall, and, in mind, to live over the days and years that are past; and many there are who occupy more or less of their time in collecting the scattered relics of bygone days—​in searching among the faded records of departed years, to eagerly catch the golden sands of facts which cling to legendary tales, and to interpret the hieroglyphics which the footsteps of time have well-nigh worn away. To this fact many a museum can bear ample testimony. The antiquarian enjoys intense satisfaction in his labors of research, and when he is rewarded by the discovery of something new, he is but stimulated to renewed exertion. In the old world rich fields have been, and are now being explored; and in the new laborers are not wanting.

Since the days when man first trod the virgin soil of this globe, he has ever been accustomed to preserve the more important events of his life, and, by tradition, to hand them down to his children’s children; and likewise has it been with communities and nations. Every people who are known to have occupied a place upon the earth, have left some indication of their origin, and the part they played in the world’s great drama. In recent days, facts pertaining to nations and particular individuals are preserved in all their amplitude, through the agency of the Press. But in former centuries, only a few symbols, perhaps rudely cut in solid stone, commemorated events of the most important kind. The historians of Eastern nations have had to look far back into the misty past, to learn the facts of their birth and infant days; while the dark days of barbarism hang as a thick veil to obstruct the view. The middle ages, like a destructive flood, swept away, to a great extent, the records previously in existence. But out of the debris has been exhumed many a precious relic; and the stone and the marble thus obtained, have supplied valuable material on which to base trustworthy history.

In recording the events which belong to the Western world—​this broad American continent—​the historian has far less of toil and research to undergo. It is true the native Indian, who once proudly ruled the vast extent of the new world, has a history yet undeveloped. An impenetrable cloud obscures the facts appertaining to his advent upon this continent. The nature of his origin is buried in the ocean of pre-historic time. But in reference to the occupation of America by Europeans, the subjugation and gradual extermination of the Indian, the life of the pioneer, the struggles for political independence, the rapid growth and development of nations; all these results, embraced within the space of a few centuries, are freely accessible to the American historian.

The importance of history cannot be questioned; the light it affords is always valuable, and, if studied aright, will supply the student with material by which he may qualify himself for any position in public life. In the following chapters it is intended to draw attention more particularly to the new world, and to examine a few pages in the history of North America.

In the absence of any data upon which to base statements relating to the aborigines, we may say the history of the new world begins with the memorable and enterprising adventures of Christopher Columbus, in 1492; although there is evidence that America had been previously visited by the people of Northern Europe, about the year 1000. The steady flow of emigrants which commenced a century later, from the old world to the new, of bold, energetic people, is a spectacle of grand import.

Almost every nation of Europe has contributed to the colonization of America. All, however, were not at first actuated by the same motives in braving the perils of the deep—​then far greater than at the present day—​and the dangers of the wilderness. The Spaniards were searching for the precious gold. The English desired to acquire territory; the Dutch sought to extend their commerce; and the French, it is said, were, at first, intent only on converting the pagan Indians to Christianity.—​(Garneau.) Space will not permit to trace the course of events in connection with the first settlements in America; the history of the several colonies, the bloody Indian wars, the contentions between the different colonizing people, the rebellions of the colonies and their achievement of independence. We shall mainly confine ourselves to those events which led to, and accompanied the settlement of Upper Canada.

Canada, the coast of which was first discovered by John Cabot, in 1497, is an honorable name, far more so than America. It has been a cause of complaint with some that the United States should appropriate to their exclusive use the name of America. But it is quite right they should enjoy it. It is after a superficial impostor, Amerigo Vespucci, who availed himself of the discoveries of Columbus, to vaunt himself into renown.

The word Canada is most probably derived from an Iroquois word, signifying Cabin. It has been stated on the authority of a Castilian tradition, that the word was of Spanish origin. The Spaniards, looking after gold, ascended the St. Lawrence, but failing to find the precious metal, exclaimed “Aca nada,” (Here is nothing.) The natives hearing the land thus called, when Europeans again visited them, upon being asked the name of their country, replied “Canada,” in imitation of the Spaniards. Again, Father Hennepin asserts that the Spaniards, upon leaving the land, gave it the appellation “El Cape di nada,” (Cape nothing,) which in time became changed into Canada. But Charlevoix, in his “Histoire de la Nouvelle France,” says that Canada is derived from the Iroquois word “Kannata,” pronounced Canada, which signifies “love of cabins.” Duponcion, in the “Transactions of the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia,” founds his belief of the Indian origin of the name Canada, on the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel by St. Matthew into the Mohawk tongue, by Brant, the word Canada is always made to signify a village. Taking the whole matter into consideration, there appears the best of reasons to conclude that Canada, a name now properly bestowed upon the Dominion, is of Indian origin, and signifies the country of a people who are accustomed to live in villages or permanent cabins, instead of in tents and constantly changing from one place to another.

The history of French Canada is one of unusual interest—​from the time Jacques Cartier, in 1534, with two vessels of less than 60 tons burden each, and 122 men in all, entered for the first time the Gulf of St. Lawrence—​up to the present day. It was not until the first decade of the 17th century, nearly a hundred years after Cartier first landed, that successful colonization by the French was accomplished. Nevertheless, Canada has as early a place among the colonies of America as New Netherlands or Virginia, which are the oldest States of the neighboring Union. Virginia was planted in 1608; New Netherlands (now New York,) was not settled until 1614. Prior to that, in 1609, Hudson had ascended the river now bearing his name, as far as the present site of Albany; but at the same time the intrepid Champlain was traversing the wilds of the more northern part of the territory to the south of Lake Ontario.

Although the history of New France is one of great interest, yet, in this local history, space can only be allowed to glance at the course of events in connection therewith. But French Canada is not in danger of suffering for want of historians to pen the events of her life. Already enthusiastic countrymen have done justice to the patriotism, valor and ability of the Franco-Canadian race. And, at the present time, earnest workers are in the field, searching among the records of the past, stowed away in Paris, with the view of making known all that can be learned of their sires. We find no fault with the intense love they bear to their language, their laws, their religion, their institutions generally. Such is characteristic of a high-spirited race; and, as common Canadians we rejoice to have so devoted a people to lay with us the foundation of our northern Dominion.

It has already been said that Jacques Cartier first landed in Canada in 1534. At this time the pent up millions of Europe, lying in a state of semi-bondage, were prepared to strike off the chains which had hitherto bound them, both in mind and body, to the select ones, who claimed that prerogative, as of Divine origin, and to avail themselves of the vast territory which Columbus had recovered from oblivion. Then was the future pregnant with events of the most startling nature—​events fraught with interests of the most colossal magnitude. While America was to open up a new field for active labor, wherein all might pluck wealth, the art of printing, so soon to be in active operation, was to emancipate the mind, and cast broadly the seeds of universal liberty. Already was being broken the fallow ground, in the rich soil of which was to germinate the great truths of science.

In May, 1535, Cartier set out on his second voyage to the New World, in “La Grande Hermion,” a vessel of 110 tons, accompanied by two other vessels of smaller size, with 110 men altogether. Reaching Labrador in July, he on St. Laurence Day entered St. John’s River; and thus arose the name of St. Lawrence, afterward applied to the mighty river now bearing that name. Guided by two natives, Cartier ascended the St. Lawrence as far as the Isle d’Orleans, where he was received by the Indians in a friendly spirit. Cartier having determined to stay the winter, moored his vessels in the St. Charles River, with the Indian village of Stadaconé upon the heights above him. The same autumn he ascended with a small party to visit Hochelaga, now Montreal. Here he found a considerable village of fifty wooden dwellings, each fifty paces long, and twelve and fifteen broad. This village was fortified. An aged and withered chief accorded Cartier a distinguished reception; after which Cartier ascended to the top of the mountain, to which he gave the name Mont Real, or Royal Mount, a name subsequently given to the village which has become the commercial capital of the Dominion, and which is destined to rival even New York.

Cartier’s stay in Canada during the winter was attended with much distress, and the loss by death of twenty-six of his men; while most of the rest were almost dying, being, it is related, saved by the medical skill of the natives. In the Spring he returned to France, carrying with him several Indians. It was five years later before another visit was made to Canada, owing to the civil and religious wars existing in France. It was the cruel laws enacted and put in force at this time in France that expatriated so many noble Huguenots who were dispersed throughout Great Britain, Ireland, and afterward America, the blood of whom yet flows in the veins of many of the descendants of the loyal refugees from the rebelling States of America. In the Summer of 1541 Cartier again set sail for the St. Lawrence. He was to have been accompanied by one Jean Francois de la Roque, a brave and faithful servant of the king, to whom had been conceded the privilege of raising a body of volunteers to form a permanent settlement upon the St. Lawrence. But unforeseen difficulties prevented his sailing until the following year. In the meantime Cartier, to whom had been given command, with five ships, had, after a tedious passage, reached Canada, and ascended to Quebec. The intending colonizers immediately went ashore and commenced the work of clearing the land for cultivation. The winter was passed in safety, but in the spring, tired of waiting for the Governor, who ought to have followed him the year before, and discovering signs of hostility on the part of the savages, he determined to return to France. So he embarked all the men and set sail. Before he had reached the Atlantic, however, he met la Roque, with some two hundred more colonists, who desired Cartier to return, but he continued his course to France. Jean Francois landed safely at Quebec. In the autumn he sent home two vessels for provisions for the following year, while he prepared to undergo the severity of the coming winter, a season that brought severe trials, with the death of fifty of his men. The following year he set out with seventy men to seek fresh discoveries up the river, but he was unsuccessful. France, again immersed in war, paid no attention to the request for succor in the New World, but ordered Cartier to bring back the Governor, whose presence as a soldier was desired. With him returned all the colonists. Thus the attempt to establish a settlement upon the St. Lawrence failed, not, however, through any want of courage, or ability on the part of Cartier, the founder of Canada. The name thus immortalized and which disappeared from the history of Canada for many years, again occupies a place. And, Sir George Etienne Cartier, of to-day, although not a lineal descendant of the first Cartier, holds a position of distinction; and, as one who has assisted in effecting the Confederation of the provinces, his name will ever stand identified, as his great predecessor and namesake, with the history of our Canada.

In 1549, Jean Francois a second time, set out for Canada with his brother, and others, but they all perished on the way. This disaster prevented any further immediate attempt at settlement in Canada.

The commencement of the seventeenth century found France again in a state suitable to encourage colonial enterprize, and she, in common with other European nations was directing her attention to the yet unexplored New World. At this time one Pont-Gravé, a merchant of St. Malo, conceived the idea of establishing a fur trade between Canada and France; and to this end he connected himself with one Chauvin, a person of some influence at court, who succeeded in obtaining the appointment of governor to Canada, with a monopoly of the peltry traffic. These two adventurers, with a few men, set out for Canada, but arrived in a state of destitution. Chauvin died, while the others were preserved alive by the kindness of the natives. Chauvin was succeeded by De Chastes, Governor of Dieppe; and Captain Samuel Champlain, who had distinguished himself as a naval officer, was appointed to command an expedition about to proceed to the New World.

The name of Champlain is indelibly fixed upon the pages of Canadian history. It was he who traversed trackless forests, ascended the most rapid rivers, discovered the Lake of Ontario, by way of Bay Quinté, and gave his name to another lake. It was in 1603 that Champlain set out upon his voyage. He had but three small vessels, it is said, of no more than twelve or fifteen tons burden. He ascended as far as Sault St. Louis, and made careful observations. He prepared a chart, with which he returned to France. The king was well pleased with his report, and De Chaste having died, Governor de Monts succeeded him, to whom was granted, exclusively, the fur trade in Canada. But their operations were confined, at first, to Acadia, now Nova Scotia. In 1607 De Monts abandoned Acadia and directed his attention to Canada. Obtaining from the king a renewal of his privileges, he appointed Champlain his lieutenant, whom he despatched with two vessels. The party arrived at Stadaconé, on the 3rd of July. The party commenced clearing land where the lower town of Quebec now stands, and erected cabins in which to live. Having determined to make this the head-quarters of his establishment, he proceeded to build a fort. Thus was founded the ancient capital of Canada upon the Gibraltar of America. The powers granted to Champlain were ample, whereby he was enabled to maintain order and enforce law. During the well nigh one hundred years that had passed away since Cartier attempted to colonize, great changes, it would seem, had taken place among the Indians. Altogether different tribes occupied the Laurentian valley; and the former Indian villages of Stadoconé, and Hochelaga had been entirely destroyed, Champlain found the Indians of this place, the Algonquins, at enmity with other tribes to the west, the Iroquois. The Algonquins were glad to form an alliance with him against their long standing enemy. It suited the purpose of Champlain to thus ally himself; but the policy may well be questioned; at all events it inaugurated a long course of warfare between the French and the Iroquois, which only terminated when Canada became a British dependency. He, no doubt, was ignorant of the great power and superiority of the confederated five nations which formed the Iroquois people. The first encounter between Champlain and the Indians took place the 29th of July, 1609, by the lake which now bears his name, which had been known by the Indians as Lake Corlar. The Iroquois, who had never before seen the use of fire-arms, were naturally overwhelmed with surprise at this new mode of warfare, by which three of their chiefs were suddenly stricken to the earth; and they beat a hasty retreat, leaving their camp to the pillage of the enemy. The following year Champlain again set out with his Indian allies, and a second time drove them from the well contested field by the use of fire-arms. It was on this occasion he first met the Hurons, which were to become such fast allies, until almost exterminated. But the time came when the Iroquois, supplied with arms and trained to their use, by the Dutch, became better able to cope with the French. In 1612 Count de Soissons succeeded De Monts. Champlain, who was again engaged in war, was at the same time endeavoring to advance the peltry traffic, a trade that had many vicissitudes, owing to the changing opinions at home, and the uncertain support of merchants. He commenced the erection of a fort at Montreal, and formed an alliance with the Huron Indians.

In the year 1615, the Iroquois were collected near the foot of Lake Ontario, a body of water as yet unseen by Europeans. At the request of the Indians, it has been said Champlain set out to attack them, after having ascended the Ottawa. The course taken by him, and the disastrous result are given in connection with the discovery of the Bay Quinté. The year 1628 saw Canada, as well as the colony of Florida, pass under the power of the “Company of the Hundred Partners.” The same year saw Quebec in a state of great distress, the inhabitants almost starving, and a fleet of British war vessels at the entrance of the St. Lawrence demanding the surrender of the fort. War was then existing between England and France, arising out of the intestine war of France, between the Huguenots and the Catholics, which had resulted in the subjugation of the former, many of whom had sought refuge in England and entered her service. Two of the vessels now threatening French Canada were commanded by Huguenots, one Captain Michel; the other David Kertk. The latter demanded the surrender of Quebec, but Champlain concealed the great straits to which he was reduced and bravely withstood the famine and cold through the long winter, in the hopes of relief in the spring, which was destined never to reach him. Instead of relief, the spring brought three vessels of war, commanded by Kertk’s two brothers, Louis and Thomas. The demand to surrender could no longer be refused, and upon the 29th July, 1618, the English took possession of Quebec. Louis Kertk became Governor, while Champlain accompanied Thomas Kertk to Europe. Quebec remained in British possession until the treaty of St-German-en-Laye, signed 29th March 1632, by which England renounced all claims upon New France.

Quebec was governed by Louis Kertk during the three years it was in possession of England, and he returned it to the French, it was alleged, a heap of ruins. On the ensuing year, the “Hundred Partners” resumed their sway, and Champlain was re-appointed Governor, who came with much pomp and took possession of Fort St. Louis with the beating of drums. Hereafter emigration from France was accelerated. Even some of the higher classes sought in Canada, repose from the troubles incident to religious and domestic war, although Catholics. The Jesuits were now superseding the order of Recollets, and were earnestly seeking to convert the Hurons; and at the same to secure their trusty allegiance. For two years prosperity continued to smile upon the province, and in 1635 the Jesuits laid the foundation stone of the College of Quebec. But the same year took from New France its chief and its greatest friend. Champlain died on Christmas day in Quebec, after “thirty years of untiring efforts to establish and extend the French possessions in America.” This great discoverer, and founder of Quebec left no children, his wife remained in Canada four years, when she returned to France.

Following the death of Champlain was the terrible onslaught by the Iroquois upon the Hurons, whom they entirely destroyed as a nation, leaving but a remnant under the protection of the French. In 1642 M. de Maisonneuve laid the foundation of Montreal, the village consisting of a few buildings with wooden palisades, was then called “Ville-Marie.” Maisonneuve gathered here the converted Indians to teach them the art of civilization.

The successor to Champlain was M. de Chateaufort: but we cannot continue to even sketch the history of the several Governors, and the successive steps in Canadian development only so far as they bear upon our subject.

In 1663 the population along the St. Lawrence numbered to between 2,000 and 2,500. In 1665 the number was increased by emigration, and by the arrival of the Carignan regiment, a veteran body of men who became permanent settlers, and who aided much in controlling the Indians and maintaining the power of the French. The same year live stock was introduced, and horses for the first time were seen in Canada. About this time commenced, in earnest, the struggle between England and France for the supremacy of the fur trade. The viceroy, M. de Tracy, began to erect regular forts upon the Richeleu. In 1671 there was a rendezvous of Indian Chiefs at Sault St. Marie, and through the influence of Father Allouez, the several tribes consented to become subjects of France. In the same year M. de Courcelles, now Governor, in pursuance of the attempt to govern the fur trade, conceived the idea of planting a fort at the foot of Lake Ontario. But he left before the work had commenced, and was succeeded by Louis de Buade, Conte de Frontenac, after whom the fort, subsequently erected, was called.

As the founder of the first settlement in Upper Canada, whose name is now so familiar, as belonging to a County, we may make space to say of Frontenac, that he was a gentleman of good birth, and had gained great distinction, having attained to the rank of Brigadier-General. He was somewhat proud and haughty, but condescending to his inferiors. His instructions from his master, the King, on coming to the Canada, were to secure the aggrandizement of France. Emigration in large numbers from France having been forbidden, he was to seek the increase of numbers in New France by stimulating early marriages. And to this day, the rate of increase by birth, among the French, is considerably greater than with the Anglo-Saxon.

He was to foster agriculture, the raising of stock, to increase the fishing operations, and the trade abroad; and he was instructed to take measures to construct a highway between Canada and Acadia, a plan which is only now about to be accomplished in the Intercolonial Railroad. Frontenac, likewise received very explicit instructions as to his procedure towards the Jesuits and Recollects; and he was charged “to administer justice with the strictest impartiality.” The Colony being at peace, Frontenac’s principal difficulty was in dealing with the Church, and he found it necessary to take high-handed steps to bring the Clergy into subjection to the State. There had been for years a struggle with respect to the liquor traffic among the Indians; the Bishops being opposed to it, while the Governor favored it for the purpose of furthering the trade in furs. The dissentions between parties became so great, and representations to the home authorities became so frequent and vexatious that Frontenac and the Intendant were both recalled in 1682. But during the incumbency of Frontenac, explorations had continued in the west, and the fort at Cataraqui had been fully established; and the Mississippi had been discovered by Pére Marquette and M. Joliet, in 1673. That same year Frontenac set out 29th of June, from Montreal, with an expedition for Cataraqui, arriving there 12th July. There was at this time one Robert Cavalier de la Salle, a native of Rouen, who had come to Canada when a young man, full of a project for securing a road by a northwestern passage to China. He was a man of ability and energy, but without means. But he managed to obtain the favorable notice of Governor Frontenac, who regarded him as a man after his own heart.

In the time of de Courcelles he opened a trading post near Montreal, now Lachine, so called from La Salle’s belief that a pathway to China would be found thence across the Continent by the waters of the Ottawa or Upper Lakes. The discovery of the Mississippi caused no little sensation in Canada; and La Salle lost no time in asking permission and assistance to continue the western explorations, declaring his belief that the upper waters of the Mississippi would, if followed to their source, lead to the Pacific Ocean. He consequently submitted a petition for a certain grant of land at Cataraqui to the king, Louis X. (See under history of Kingston.)

Thus it seems that La Salle, a name greatly distinguished in connection with the discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi, stands connected very intimately with the foundation of Kingston. For him a Seigniory was here erected, and from this point he went forth on his eventful voyage. He was a man of much energy and lost no time in setting out. His boats laden with goods, and likewise with material for constructing a brigantine, and a fort, set sail for the Niagara River. The first steps La Salle prepared to take was to erect a second fort at Niagara, and then to build his vessel upon the waters of Lake Erie.

The construction of the defensive work of the fort, however, suited not the views of the Indians, so he satisfied himself with a palisaded storehouse. In the winter the vessel was commenced, six miles above the Falls. By the middle of summer it was ready to be launched, which was done with a salute of cannon, and the chanting of a Te deum, amid great rejoicing. There was also great demonstration among the Indians, who designated the French “Otkou,” or “men of a contriving mind.” The vessel was named Griffon, and on the 7th August, 1679, with seven guns, and small arms, and loaded with goods she entered Lake Erie. A few day’s sail and Detroit, or the strait was reached; and on the 23rd August, she was cutting the waters of Lake Huron. In five days Michilmicinac was gained; then the voyageur proceeded to the western shore of Michigan, where he cast anchor. The wonder of the Aborigines, as they witnessed this mounted craft, and heard the thunder tones of the cannon, may be conceived. But this first vessel upon the western lakes, which had at first so prosperous a voyage, was doomed to early destruction. Men of enterprise and success invariably have to encounter enemies born of incapacity and jealousy, who in the absence of the victim, may sow the seeds of evil. La Salle had not a few of such enemies, it would seem, to encounter. After his departure his creditors had seized his possessions, and he, as soon as he heard of it, loaded the Griffon with peltries and despatched her for Niagara. But the Griffon never reached Detroit, the waters of Lake Huron swallowed her up, and all on board. La Salle proceeded with thirty men to the lower end of Lake Michigan, and laid the foundation of another fort. He then continued westward to the Illinois River, and formed still another fort. But this chain of forts thus established by La Salle, was not destined to accomplish the great end aimed at. Among the opponents of La Salle, were not only those jealous of his success, but likewise rival merchants, who were ill pleased to see the fur trade monopolized by one; and then, there was the growing trade by the English. These many obstacles and the loss of his vessel with its cargo, and of a second one, in the Gulph of St. Lawrence, about this time, valued at £22,000, had the effect of seriously crippling him; yet his was a nature not easily overcome. Leaving Father Hennepin to explore the Illinois River and the Upper Mississippi, he set out March 2nd, 1680, for Montreal, accompanied by four whites and an Indian guide.

Two years later and the indomitable La Salle, nothing daunted, who had compounded with his creditors, and suffered repeated disappointments, is found traversing the forest, for the Mississippi, to descend that stream to its mouth. He reached the Mississippi, 6th February, 1682. Descending the stream he stopped at the mouth of the Ohio to erect a fort. He then continued his easy course down the Father of rivers, and reached its mouth on the 5th April, and took formal possession of the territory in the name of the king, calling the place after him, Louisiana. The glory thus won by La Salle, was not to be crowned with the success, financially, that ought to have followed. At this juncture Governor Frontenac, seemingly the only friend La Salle had, was called home to be followed by M. de la Barre. A continuation of the persecutions and misrepresentations of his conduct, led to the sequestration of Fort Frontenac, as well as Fort St. Louis, and in the following year he was called upon to defend himself at court, which he was able to do. The result was an order to reinstate the founder of Louisiana on his return, in Fort Frontenac, and to repair all damages which his property had sustained in that locality.

La Salle was graciously received by the king on account of his discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi, and was commissioned to begin a colonization of Louisiana. The same unfortunate luck continued to attend him. He sailed July 24th, 1684, from La Rochelle with two ships of war and two other vessels, having some 500 persons in all. The fleet was commanded by M. de Beaujeu. Between the commander and La Salle, a misunderstanding arose which ended in decided aversion. One of the ships was captured by the Spaniards, and the others overpassed the mouth of the Mississippi by many leagues. The commander instead of assisting to carry out La Salle’s object, did all he could to thwart him. One of the vessels was run upon the reefs and lost. Finally Beaujeu left La Salle with his people upon a desert shore without provision, and put out to sea. Although 120 leagues distant from the Mississippi, in Texas, La Salle set some of his people to cultivate the land, and began to construct a fort. But the craftsmen were deficient. The seed sown did not grow, the savages became troublesome, and one evil after another rapidly succeeded until his men were mostly all dead. As a last resort La Salle determined to set out for Canada to proceed to France. It was early spring and the indomitable discoverer found but slow progress; at last some of those accompanying him, mutinied together and resorted to force, during which La Salle was mortally wounded. Thus perished the discoverer of the mouth of the Mississippi, the founder of Louisiana, as well as the first land owner of Upper Canada. It is worthy of note here how great was the territory of France in America at this time. It was a vast region, embracing within its limits the Hudson’s Bay territory, Acadia, Canada, a great part of Maine, portions of the States of Vermont and New York, with the whole of the valley of the Mississippi. And a great portion of this ought, to-day, to form part of Canada, some of which would, were it not for the indifference, or stupidity of English commissioners, and the contemptible trickery of Americans, such as the act of concealing the fact of the existence of a certain map by Daniel Webster, which would prove adverse to his pretentions.

It has been deemed appropriate to follow La Salle in his steps, not alone because he was the first settler in Upper Canada, who held land property; but because we learn of the way in which the French, originally struggling to gain a footing in the Lower St. Lawrence, gradually extended westward, carrying in one hand the Cross, and with the other, planting forts for the purpose of trade, and erecting such defences as the uncertain character of the natives rendered necessary. We learn how it came, that fort after fort, whose ruins may yet be traced across the continent, were planted along a route which commenced at the mouth of the mighty St. Lawrence, extended along the western lakes, and then turning southward terminated at the mouth of the majestic Mississippi.

INTRODUCTION.

(CONTINUED.)

CHAPTER II.

Contents—​Cataraqui fort strengthened—​Kente Indians seized and carried captive to France—​Massacre of Lachine—​Commencing struggle between New England and New France—​Siege of Quebec by Sir Wm. Phipps—​Destruction of Fort Cataraqui—​Its re-erection—​Treaty of Ryswick—​Death of Frontenac—​Iroquois in England—​Another attempt to capture Quebec—​Decline of French power—​Population of Canada and of New England—​Continuation of the contest for the fur trade—​Taking of Fort Louisburg—​Col. Washington, dishonorable conduct—​Inconsistency of Dr. Franklin—​Commencement of seven years’ war—​Close of first year—​Montcalm—​His presentiment—​Taking of Fort Oswego—​Of Fort William Henry—​Fearful massacre—​The state of Canada—​Wolfe appears—​Taking of Frontenac—​Duquesne—​Apathy of France—​The spring of 1759—​Reduced state of Canada—​The overthrow of French power in America—​The result—​Union of elements—​The capture of Quebec—​Wolfe—​Death of Montcalm—​Fort Niagara—​Johnson—​Effort to retake Quebec—​Wreck of the French army—​Capitulation at Montreal—​Population—​The first British Governor of Canada—​The Canadians as British subjects—​The result of French enterprise—​Rebellion.

In 1685 Marquis DeNonville became Governor, and brought with him to Canada 600 regular troops. The Iroquois had become allies of the English, with whom they preferred to trade. DeNonville ascended to Cataraqui with two thousand men. Arrived at Cataraqui, he tried, by gentle means at first, to obtain certain terms from them, but the Iroquois were insolent, being supported by the English traders. DeNonville wrote to Paris for more troops, and, in the mean time, proceeded to accumulate stores at Cataraqui, and to strengthen the fort at Niagara. The King sent to Canada, in 1687, 800 soldiers, to assist in subduing the Iroquois. DeNonville becoming bold, and in his increased strength, pursued a course of trickery which has been branded by all writers as anti-Christian, and more savage than anything pertaining to the savages (so-called) of America. Pére Lamberville, a missionary among the Iroquois, caused a certain number of chiefs to congregate at Fort Frontenac, to confer with the governor, and when they were within the precincts of the fort they were seized and carried captive in chains, even to France, and there sent to the galleys. Draper says that these were Indians of the tribes called Ganneyouses and Kentes, and that about 40 or 50 men, and 80 women and children were seized, who were forwarded to France. The attitude of the Indians under such trying circumstances, towards the missionary among them, stands out in prominent contrast to the vile conduct of the French governor. The missionary, summoned by the chief, was thus addressed: “We have every right to treat thee as our foe, but we have not the inclination to do so. We know thy nature too well; thine heart has had no share in causing the wrong that has been done to us. We are not so unjust as to punish thee for a crime that thou abhorrest as much as we.” Then the aged chief informed him that the young men of the tribe might not feel so lenient, and that he must leave, at the same time causing him to be conducted by a safe path from their midst.

For a time DeNonville somewhat curbed the Iroquois; but in the end he failed completely to hold the ground which had previously been acquired. For four years he continued to govern; matters continually growing worse, until, in the spring of 1689, 1,400 Iroquois made an onslaught on the island of Montreal. The inhabitants, in the depth of sleep, knew nothing of their danger, until the fearful whoop and the bloody tomahawk and scalping knife were already at work. The butchery was most fearful; the cruelties to women and children most revolting. Besides those instantly killed, 200 were burnt alive, and others died under prolonged torture. This was called the massacre of Lachine. The governor was paralyzed, and no step was taken to redress the great evil.

It was under such circumstances that he was recalled, and superseded by De Frontenac, who had again been requested to become governor. Frontenac landed at Quebec on the 18th October, 1689, and was received with every demonstration of joy.

Frontenac entered upon his duties shortly before the renewal of hostilities between England and France. All of Protestant Europe, indeed, were enlisted in the war which had, to a great extent, arisen from the cruel course pursued by France towards the Huguenots. Frontenac, whose master foresaw the war, which was declared in the following year, brought with him full instructions to prepare for a vigorous warfare all along the frontier of New France, even to the Hudson Bay territory. By this time the English settlements upon the Atlantic coast had attained to no inconsiderable strength, and were already engaging in trade by water, as well as with the Indians in peltries; and already it had become a question of conquest by New England or by New France. The present juncture seemed one favorable for bold measures on the part of the Anglo-Americans. They had rapidly advanced in material strength, while the French had rather declined, owing to the want of immigration and to the frequent destructive incursions of the Iroquois. The declaration of war between England and France, in June, 1689, saw the colonists prepared to contest the ground for supremacy, and monopoly of the fur trade. The French, notwithstanding their limited numerical strength, hesitated not to enter the field, and made up their want of numbers by superior and determined bravery. Before De Frontenac had arrived, everything was going on badly with the Canadians. M. DeNonville had, before his departure, instructed Senor de Valreuve, commandant at Cataraqui, to blow up the fort, which had been accordingly done; and the country abandoned to the Indians, who now ranged the country, to the very entrance of Montreal. But Frontenac determined to take bold and active measures to carry the war into the enemies’ country, notwithstanding the odds against the French. Organized plans of attack, at different points, were arranged, one of which, in its carrying out, was quite as cruel and barbarous as the Lachine massacre, which it was intended, as afterwards stated, it should revenge. A party of French and Indians were led in the direction of Albany. On their way, one night, about eleven o’clock, they attacked the sleeping town of Schenectady, and put the defenceless inhabitants to the sword. Those acts cannot be justified in Europeans, and show the fearful spirit of barbarity which reigned in those early days of America. The effect produced by the bands of raiders that swept over the British colonies along the frontier, and here and there, into the very interior, was salutary to the French interests, and the spring saw the French flag much more respected by the Indians than it had lately been: yet the Iroquois earnestly and boldly strove to carry death to the door of every Canadian hamlet. The energetic measures adopted by Frontenac frustrated all their attempts; yet it was unsafe for the husbandman to go to the field, so that famine began to appear. The spring of 1691 saw, however, instead of a repeated invasion of New England, extensive preparations in the latter country to invade Canada. Sir William Phipps was preparing to sail from Boston, with a squadron, to capture Quebec, and General Winthrop, with forces from Connecticut and New York, was mustering his militia, to invade by land. The latter marched to, and encamped upon, the banks of Lake George, where he waited for the appearance of Phipps, by the St. Lawrence; but, in the meantime, disease attacked his troops, and he was obliged to retrace his steps to Albany. Scarcely had Winthrop departed when the fleet under Phipps entered the waters of the St. Lawrence, and ascended, to invest the City of Quebec, appearing in sight on the 16th of October. Phipps demanded a surrender; but Frontenac, although with an inferior garrison and but few troops, gave a spirited refusal; and ultimately, before the close of the month, Phipps found it expedient to retire. Thus terminated the first siege of Quebec.

The ensuing four years presented one continuous scene of border warfare. While hostilities in Europe were exhausting the resources of France, Canada, under Frontenac, was more than holding its own. The British Americans vainly tried again to besiege Quebec, making an attack by land; but each attempt was attended with disaster. Frontenac, recognizing the importance of Cataraqui as a place of defence, sent 700 men to re-erect the fort. In this he was opposed by the Intendant, M. de Champigny, and even by the home government; but he had the work completed in 1695, before orders came to abstain from erecting it. Frontenac had submitted a report giving the reasons why the fort should exist, namely: in time of peace for trade, and to repair hatchets and arms; and in time of war to afford a place of retreat, and to give succor and provisions; also a place to organize expeditions against the Iroquois, and to receive the sick and wounded on returning from expeditions. On the other hand, De Champigny reported that the trade would not be much in time of peace, as the Iroquois would prefer to deal with the English, who would give more; that the Indian should carry the beaver skin to the French, not the French go for it; that the fort was out of the direct course of trade, some thirty or forty leagues; that the force necessary to carry provisions would at any time be capable of proceeding against the enemy. It would be better to take a more southerly course from Montreal into the enemy’s country, while Cataraqui is situated upon the opposite side of the lake; that it was an unfit place for sick and wounded, being “very unhealthy, eighty-seven having died there in one year, out of the hundred who composed the garrison.” “The swamp poisons the garrison,” which is so situated that it affords no protection except to the men within it, who might as well be in a prison. He counselled that the fort should be abandoned, as it was useless and expensive. Frontenac, however, having erected the fort, garrisoned it with 48 soldiers. The expense of re-establishing the fort and supplying the necessary provisions cost some £700. At this juncture the French had entertained the idea of calling in the outposts along the western lakes and upon the Mississippi, but it was represented that to do so was to open the way for the exclusive trade of the Indians with the English. But Frontenac advised no such measures. He, by his determined bravery, succeeded in bringing the Iroquois to respect the French name, and he often carried fire and death into their very country. When the war terminated, the old boundaries of the Provinces had been fully re-established, and honors were conferred upon the governor by his royal master. In 1697 the war terminated by the treaty of Ryswick, signed September 11, by which the French were to restore all places taken from the British in America; and it was stipulated that a commission should be appointed to determine the respective boundaries of the Provinces.

In the year 1698, on the 28th November, Count de Frontenac died, aged 77, much beloved by the Canadians, after having raised New France from a low condition to a high state of material advancement. But against him was too truly said that he encouraged the dreadful traffic of liquor among the Indians, in order that advantageous trading, in which the governor allowed himself to meddle, might be carried on.

On 26th May, 1703, M. de Calliére, who had been the successor of Frontenac, died, and the governor of Montreal, who was the Marquis de Vaudreuil, was nominated as successor.

This appointment, made at the instance of the colonists, was conferred with hesitancy, the reason being that his Countess was a native-born Canadian! Not only in that day but in later days, and under other circumstances, we have seen the belief obtaining that natives of Canada must, from the nature of their birth-place, lack those qualifications for distinguished positions with which those from home are supposed to be so eminently endowed.

The British Colonists by this time began to entertain desires to conquer Canada, and steps were taken to accomplish the taking of Quebec. Among those who took an active part, by raising provincial troops, and in visiting England to obtain assistance, was General Nicholson, whose descendants to this day live in the vicinity of the Bay Quinté, and in the Lower Provinces. In 1710 he visited England, in company with five Iroquois chiefs, who were presented to Queen Anne, and who received distinguished attention, being conveyed to the palace in royal coaches. It was following this that the Queen presented those interesting pieces of Communion plate to the five nations, part of which may be seen at Tyendinagua, and part at the Grand River. A futile attempt was made by Nicholson, with a fleet under Admiral Walker, in 1711, to take Quebec. The whole enterprise not only failed but was attended with great disaster. General Nicholson, with his army at Lake Champlain, had to give up his desire to capture Montreal and Quebec.

On March 30, 1713, was signed the treaty of Utrecht. In this treaty abridgement of French territory in America was effected. Acadia, Hudson’s Bay territory and Newfoundland were ceded to Britain. French power was on the decline both in America, and Europe. Vainly the French tried to regain what they had lost in Newfoundland and Acadia, by founding an establishment at Cape Breton, and in the foundation of the historic fort of Louisburg.

In 1714 Governor Vaudreuil went to France, where he remained until September, 1716. He then returned to Canada, and set about improving the state of affairs generally. Quebec, at the present day such an impregnable fortress, was not, in any respect, regularly fortified before the beginning of this century. To the natural strength of the place was first added artificial aid, in 1702. To this again were added, in 1712, other defences, and in 1720, by the approval of the home government, the fortification was systematically proceeded with. At this time the colony was divided into three distinct governments, those of Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal; and the whole was subdivided into eighty-two parishes. The whole population was estimated at 25,000; whilst at the same time the British colonies had 60,000 males able to bear arms. The governor, aware of this, already began to fear a successful invasion of Canada.

M. de Vaudreuil died October 10, 1725, having been governor twenty-one years. He was succeeded by the Marquis de Beauharnois, who arrived at Quebec in 1726. The contest for the supremacy of the fur trade continued. The British seeing the advantage of the line of forts held by the French determined to erect a fort also, and selected the mouth of the Oswego for its site. As an offset to this aggression on the part of the British, against which the French vainly protested, the French fort at the mouth of the Niagara was erected, with defences; and orders were given that a stone fort should replace the one originally constructed of wood, at Cataraqui. In 1731, Fort Frederick was also erected, at Crown Point, on Lake Champlain. This year, Varrennes, Sieur de la Vérendrye, urged by the governor, set about to discover a route to the Pacific ocean; but he only reached the foot of the Rocky Mountains, being the first white man to discover them. About this time the fort at Toronto (Lake) is, for the first time, referred to. For more than a decade the strife for the peltry traffic continued to be waged, yet without any actual warfare. It was seen by all that peace could not continue, and New England and New France were all the time anticipating the conflict. In 1745 war broke out in Europe, and immediately extended to America. It will be remembered that the French were dispossessed of Acadia, but had subsequently erected a fort upon Cape Breton, Louisburg. From this naval stronghold they were able to send privateers and men-of-war. The English, in the meantime, seeing this evil, and that this was a protection to the only entrance to French territory, determined to possess it promptly, if it were possible. To carry out this project, which originated with Governor Shirley, of Massachusetts, 4,000 militia, levied in Mass., New Hampshire, Maine, and Connecticut, under Colonel Pepperel, sailed from Boston in March. The attack upon this strong fort was so well planned and carried out, that full success was the result. Admiral Warren arrived with ships to give assistance, and captured a French ship of 64 guns, with 560 soldiers and supplies. Already the Anglo-Americans were beginning to display the energy (derived from an energetic race) which was to overturn British domination in the Atlantic States. But in the first place it was necessary that England should extinguish French power. The brilliant nature of the attack and taking of Fort Louisburg was recognized by the granting of baronetcies to Governor Shirley and Colonel Pepperel. This success hastened the determination to conquer Canada—​a desire already existing in the hearts of the Anglo-Americans; and Governor Shirley applied to the British government for regulars and a fleet for that purpose. Meanwhile, a fleet, with several thousand troops, sailed from France, with a view of re-taking Cape Breton and Acadia; but tempest and disease destroyed the force, until it was no longer able to invade.

From the year 1745 border warfare continually blazed along the frontier. The French, with their savage allies, carried the scalping-knife and the torch into the British settlements, captured Fort Massachusetts and Fort Bridgman, and gained other victories, and the luckless settlers had to seek safety in the more largely-settled parts of the country.

Again came temporary peace to the colonists. In 1748, upon the 7th of October, the treaty was signed at Aix-la-Chapelles, by the terms of which Cape Breton reverted to the French. This treaty was, however, but a lull in the struggle in America, which was destined to end in conquest.

The French continued to strengthen their outposts. Detroit was garrisoned, and forts of stone were built at Green Bay, Toronto, and La Présentation. In 1756, Fort Duquesne, at Pittsburgh, was established. It was in this year that Washington first came before the public as an actor. He led a considerable force to the west, with the view of destroying Fort Duquesne, and encountered a small body of French. The man who subsequently became a hero by concurring events, as well as by his own energy, did not, on this occasion—​if we may credit history—​act a very honorable part. Informed of the camping ground of the enemy, he marched all night, to attack them in the morning. Junonville, the commander, when aware of the proximity of Washington, made known to him by a trumpeter that he had a letter to deliver, and when Junonville had begun to read his letter firing was suddenly re-commenced. The painters of Washington’s character have tried to cover this stain; but unbiassed recorders think he was by no means blameless. But Washington’s humiliation rapidly followed this unmanly procedure. The main force of the French, hearing of the massacre by Washington, advanced to revenge it; and, attacking him in his own chosen position, succeeded, after ten hours’ fighting with muskets alone, against cannon, in driving Washington from his position, and compelled him to make an inglorious retreat.

At the beginning of 1755, England sent out additional soldiers and means of war, and appointed General Braddock, who had distinguished himself as a soldier, to act as military chief.

At this time, “Dr. Franklin estimated the whole English provincials at a total of 1,200,000; whilst the whole number of people in Canada, Cape Breton, Louisiana, &c., was under 80,000 souls.”—​(Garneau.) At the same time France was weak, by the presence of an indolent King, who allowed himself and kingdom to be governed by a courtesan, Madame de Pompadour. Religious dissensions and stagnation of trade, all contributed to place France in but a poor position to engage in war. Great Britain, on the contrary, was in all respects prosperous. At such a favorable time it was that the Anglo-Americans urged the mother country to carry on, with the utmost rigor, a war for the subjugation of Canada. Franklin, as astute a politician as clever in science, was their principal mouthpiece. He who, twenty-five years thereafter, repaired to Paris, to arouse the public feeling of France and entire Europe against Britain; the same who came to Canada to revolutionize it in 1776, was, in 1754, the greatest promoter of the coming invasion of the French possessions in North America. “There need never be permanent repose expected for our thirteen colonies,” urged he, “so long as the French are masters of Canada.” Thus was inaugurated what is known as the seven years’ war.

The respective combatants marshalled their forces for the conflict. The French, nothing daunted, took energetic measures to repel the foe, and strike blows here and there, as opportunity afforded. A force was sent to take Fort Oswego from the English, while Johnson, a name to be mentioned hereafter, was despatched to attack Fort Frederick. The first great battle was fought in the Ohio valley, by General Braddock. Here the French gained a signal victory, with but a few men, and utterly put to rout their enemy. At Fort Edward, the French, under General Dieskau, were less successful in an encounter with Johnson, the French commander being taken prisoner.

The close of the first year saw Forts Frederick, Niagara and Duquesne, still in the hands of the French, while bands of savages and Canadians traversed the British settlements, massacring and burning all before them.

The ensuing year witnessed more elaborate arrangements to continue the war. France sent to Canada soldiers, provisions, war material and money; and, also, the Marquis de Montcalm was selected to take charge of the army. Montcalm had seen service, and with him came other officers likewise experienced.

Proceeding to Montreal, he conferred with the Governor, and it was determined to form two principal camps, one at Ticonderoga, the other at Frontenac, and a battalion was despatched to Niagara.

The British, at the same time, made extensive preparations, both in the colonies and at home, and the Earl of London was appointed generalissimo.

It is a remarkable fact that Montcalm had from the first a fatal presentiment as to the issue of the war; yet he, all the same, took every step that prudence and energy directed, to secure the success of his army. There was also a coolness between him and the Governor, who manifested a determination and energy worthy of him. It was determined that fresh attempts should be made to possess Fort Oswego, and General Montcalm arrived at Frontenac for that purpose on the 29th of July. Upon the 11th August they reached Oswego and invested the Fort, which was obliged to surrender on the 14th, the commander, Colonel Mercer, having been killed. The Fort was razed to the ground. The Canadians then withdrew to their homes carrying the prisoners of war, and the guns of the Fort, and provisions with them. This was the principal event of this year. The winter saw the Canadians suffer from famine and small-pox. During the winter 1757–8, there was continued hostility, and in the following year Montcalm succeeded in taking Fort William Henry, after a siege of four days. Colonel Munroe commanded the Fort, and he trusted for support to General Webb, who failed to afford it, but instead sent a message to Munroe to retire, which note fell into the hands of Montcalm. Munroe on the morning of the 9th, displayed his flag of truce. The events of this capitulation have ever been held in remembrance, because of the fearful massacre which the Indians made of the English, who had surrendered, and who marched out without their arms, in full confidence in the integrity of the victorious besiegers. Stern history has cast no little blame upon Montcalm, for at least remissness of duty; and the pen of historic fiction has found it a fruitful theme with which to weave a story, and record thrilling events.

The ensuing winter was one of great privation to the Canadians, the harvest had failed; and everything began to look dark indeed for the devoted French; yet four years of war had given all the advantage to their arms. The continued ill-success of the British, caused them to raise increased numbers of men, so that by numerical force they might overwhelm the French. In the spring of 1758, 80,000 British combatants were ready to march. While such was the condition and war-like spirit which obtained upon the British side, a far different state of affairs existed with the French. Success had so far attended the gallant feats undertaken by them. All along the lengthened border the foe had been defeated, or had gained but scant victory. Again, the Iroquois nation, impressed with the success thus obtained by the French, and gratified to have the Fort of Oswego, always unpleasant to them, destroyed, seemed inclined to take sides with them, certainly did not favor the English. But, when so much has been said the extent of French power in America has been stated. Canada was no longer receiving support from France. The colonists had been weakened by continual warfare and repeated crop-failures.

But undeterred by the dark clouds that continued to thicken, the Canadians buckled on their armor to fight till the very last. Says Montcalm to the Minister at home, “We shall fight and we shall bury ourselves, if need be, under the ruins of the colony.” Again the tide of war ebbed and flowed with fearful power. Carillon was made red with British blood, as vain endeavors were made to capture that French strong hold. Against Louisburg, Cape Breton, Carillon, Lake Champlain, and Duquesne in the Ohio Valley, the English arrayed their fleets and armies. In the attack now made upon Louisburg, for the first time appears the name of Wolfe, who distinguished himself by scaling a rock, with a hundred men, which had hitherto been regarded unaccessible. After a spirited defence, the French surrendered the Fort, a perfect wreck, July 26. About this time Cape Breton passed into British hands, and thus was opened to the English, the Fort of Quebec.

In the mean time the attack upon Fort Carillon by General Abercromby, with a strong army, had proved a complete failure. The French, although few, desperately met the repeated assaults made during half a day, and Abercromby, cut up and ashamed, was forced to relinquish the matter. This battle was fought July 8th, in which 3,600 men struggled successfully for six hours against 15,000 picked soldiers. (Garneau.) De Lévis, who had been in command at Fort Frontenac, was called by Montcalm to take part in the defence of Carillon. This left Fort Frontenac comparatively weak, and Abercromby, having learned the fact, despatched Colonel Bradstreet, who had taken an active part in the battle, to capture the Fort. Bradstreet set out with 3,000 men, 11 guns and mortars. The invading force reached its destination August 25. The Fort had been left with 70 men under the command of M. de Noyan, notwithstanding, the Fort was bravely defended for a time. “The victors captured many cannons, quantities of small arms, boats of provisions and nine newly armed barques,—​part of the trophies brought from Oswego when captured. After loading his barges to the waters-edge, Bradstreet released his prisoners on parole, burnt the Fort, also seven of the barks, and returned to his country.” (Garneau.) This was a severe blow to the struggling Canadians. The Governor had ordered the farmers from the field, and all the savages he could command, to march to the assistance of Fort Frontenac; but when the party reached Fort Présentation, (Ogdensburg), it was learned that Frontenac was already destroyed. To add to the misfortune of the French, the same autumn, General Forbes, notwithstanding a part of his force had been previously defeated, secured the destruction of Fort Duquesne on the Ohio. This closed the engagements for the year 1748, and everything looked for the French, most discouraging. The winter was spent by the English in preparing for a still more determined continuation of the war; while the French wasted their energies in domestic dissention. The Governor M. de Vaudreuil and Montcalm ceased not to quarrel, and to charge each other with incompetency, and even crimes. At the same time the means of the country was absorbed by unpatriotic merchants, who availed themselves of the circumstances of the country to amass fortunes by illegal traffic in furs with the Indians.

The Government at home, although informed by Montcalm that Canada would be conquered if help were not sent, took no step to assist the devoted Colonists, who, although disheartened were not disposed to surrender allegiance to their native country, even when all but forsaken. The spring of 1759 beheld them standing to their arms with calm determination, awaiting the onset of the foe. The British as in previous years prepared to invade Canada simultaneously at three different points. There was no fortress in the Lower St. Lawrence to obstruct their advance by water, so Quebec was the point at which, to the east, the attack would be made. A corps of 10,000 men commanded by General Wolfe, who we have seen, distinguished himself at the taking of Louisburg, prepared to ascend the St. Lawrence to invest the capital. Another force 12,000 strong under General Amherst, a name we shall have to speak of hereafter, was to pass by Lake Champlain to descend the Richeleu and to join Wolfe at Quebec. And a third force, under General Prideaux, with savages under Sir William Johnson, were to possess Fort Niagara, and then descend to the capture of Montreal. Opposed to the numerous and well appointed armies of invasion, there was, according to Garneau, all in all of Frenchmen, between the ages of 16 and 60, capable of bearing arms, but a little over 15,000. In the early spring, one M. de Corbiere, ascended with the view of rebuilding Fort Frontenac. 300 men were also sent to repair and defend Niagara. But it soon was deemed expedient to recall them and to concentrate their forces. Every man from even the more remote parts, presented himself to the nearest place of rendezvous. In the latter part of May, word came that the enemies’ ships were coming.

The events connected with the overthrow of French supremacy in Canada cannot fail to impress the student of Canadian history.

The capture of Quebec, and, as an inevitable result, the conquest of Canada are events of great interest; but the space cannot be allowed here to more than refer to the thrilling scenes of valor displayed by the victors and the vanquished. As Canadians of British origin we recognize the event as one not to be deplored, however Franco-Canadians may regard the question. The conquest of Canada, was to add a new element to that of the British American which was destined to grow, and to act no mean part in respect to British interests in America, and we believe, ultimately to completely amalgamate with a portion of the older elements, and thus to beget a race, under Confederation, none the less noble, none the less stable, and none the less glorious, than that race (a prototype of this)—​the Original Anglo-Saxon derived from the Norman, who came to England with William the Conqueror, as well as the Saxon elements.

More than a hundred years have passed away since the fall of Quebec. The centenary anniversary of the event has been celebrated with an amount of enthusiasm which probably Quebec never witnessed before. Since the American Revolution, when the French Canadians fought by the side of the American Loyalist to defend Quebec, the former have ceased to be a conquered people—​Sequestrated from France, they have escaped all the horrors which have since swept over that people, while they have retained their language, religion, and laws. A hundred years has eradicated or rather changed all the feelings which burned so fervently in the French Canadian heart, except their love of Canada; and they have joined heartily with the Anglo-Saxon to erect a joint monument which commemorates at once the heroism of Wolfe, and the gallantry of Montcalm.

Although the forces invading under Wolfe, exceeded in number those who defended the citadel, yet, the greatest heroism was displayed in its taking. The British fleet of “20 ships of the line with frigates and smaller war vessels,” and transports, reached the Isle of Orleans, June 25, where the land force disembarked and proceeded deliberately to invest the stronghold, finding a more difficult task than had been expected. Repeated attempts and assaults were made with the result of showing Wolfe how strong was the position his youthful ardor would fain secure. Not alone was he baffled thus, but a severe illness prostrated him to death’s door, whose portals were so soon to be opened to him, by another means. In his moments of discouragement he had written home in a spirit not calculated to afford hope. The plan which resulted in success, it is said was suggested by his three faithful Generals, Monkton, Townshend and Murray.

The night before the 13th of September, 1759, the day upon which Wolfe was to win imperishable laurels, and to lay down his life, he felt a presentiment that his end was near, and carefully arranged all his worldly affairs. On the evening of the 12th he invited Captain John Davis (afterwards Admiral, Earl St. Vincent), of the Porcupine sloop of war, to spend an hour or two on board the Sutherland. “Wolfe, in the course of their conversation, said that he knew he should not survive the morrow; and when they were about to separate, he took from his bosom the picture of Louther and delivered it into the hands of his friend, whom he requested, should his foreboding be fulfilled, to restore the pledge to the lady on his arrival in England.”

Having previously made disposition of his forces to prepare the way for the final attack, and, as well in some instances, to deceive the enemy as to his intentions, Wolfe finally, at one o’clock, upon the morning of the 13th September, set out in flat bottomed boats to make his landing at Fuller’s Cove, thereafter to be called after himself. The night was dark, and other circumstances being favorable the landing was safely effected, the heights ascended, and at the break of day Montcalm learned with the utmost astonishment that the enemy was upon the heights of Abraham in battle array. Montcalm hastened to drive away the venturesome foe, but this was not to be accomplished; a few hours brought a realization of his early presentiment. After a spirited struggle the French were to be seen running, the announcement of which made Wolfe die happy; and, Montcalm was wounded unto death. He died on the 14th. The defeat of Montcalm secured the capture of Quebec, yet it was not until the 18th September that the city surrendered, and French writers would make it appear that even then it were not necessary.

The command of the French army after the death of Montcalm devolved upon Gen. de Lévis, who had been absent up the St. Lawrence. He returned to Montreal only in time to hear of Montcalm’s defeat. He hastened to the rescue of the beleaguered city, but he reached the vicinity, not until Quebec had passed into the hands of the British.

During the time these exciting scenes had been transpiring at Quebec, Gen. Amherst had been confronting Boulamaque, upon the shores of Lake Champlain; whom he had compelled to return, and to destroy Fort Frederick and to retire to Isle Aux Nois. In the west, at Niagara Gen. Prideaux and Sir Wm. Johnson had been successful in taking the Fort from Pouchot. By this, Lake Ontario with its northern shore, as well as the region of the Bay of Quinté came into the possession of the British.

The expedition to capture Fort Niagara, taken at the urgent request of the Governor of New York, was under the command of General Prideaux. The attacking party landed at Four Mile Creek almost four miles east of the Fort, on the 6th July, 1759. Fort Niagara was garrisoned by 486 men according to Pouchot, the French commander, but according to English statements 600. General Prideaux forces numbered, according to Capt. de Lancy, 1,200, and 1,000 Indians, as said by Sir William Johnson. Pouchot discovered their approach the following day. He despatched couriers to Presque Isle, to Fort Machault, at the mouth of French Creek, Pa., and to the commander of the Fort at the “Carrying Place” for assistance. Reinforcements were sent, numbering about 600 French, and 100 Indians. They resembled when passing down the rapids, “a floating island, so black was the river with batteaux and canoes.” They landed a few miles above the falls and proceeded to Lewiston and thence to relieve Pouchot. In the mean time the siege had been pressed with vigor. Prideaux, the English General, had been killed and the command had devolved on Sir W. Johnson. The English learned of the approach of the reinforcements, and Captain James de Lancy was despatched to a position in ambuscade above the present site of Youngstown. The French discovering the English in ambush, made an impetuous attack upon them, but the English withstood the assault, and eventually turned the tide against the enemy, who were put to flight, 200 being killed, and 100 taken prisoners. Pouchot learned of the disaster about two o’clock; and, two hours after Sir W. Johnson demanded a surrender. That same evening, or on the following morning he complied; but he has stated that he would not have done so had it not been for the mutiny of the Germans who formed a part of the garrison. On the 26th the garrison left the fort to be transported to New York. Thus was the power of the French broken in the west, and the English became masters of the key to the Northwest.

The following spring Gen. de Lévis determined to make an effort to retake Quebec, and upon the 28th of April, the plains of Abraham were again red with blood, and the British, under Gen. Murray, were compelled to seek safety within the walls of the city, where they were besieged until the 9th, when a British frigate arrived and gave succor.

On the 14th July Gen. Murray, with a large sailing force, commenced the ascent of the St. Lawrence. At the same time Gen. Amherst, with a considerable force was commencing a descent from Oswego. The two were thus advancing toward Montreal, each subduing on the way such forts and garrisons as were deemed of sufficient importance. By the first of September, the city of the Royal Mountain, containing the wreck of the French army was encompassed on either hand. The Governor, upon the night of the 6th, held a council of war, at which it was determined to capitulate. The celebrated act was signed on the 8th September, 1760, and the same day the English took possession of the city. Thus Canada passed into the possession of the British. The terms of capitulation were more favorable to the French than they had any reason to expect, and those terms have ever been fulfilled.

The Governor, Gen. de Lévis, the officers, and a large number of men, women and children returned to France. At the time of the taking of Montreal, there remained at Detroit some three or four hundred families. This Fort and others around the lakes yet held by the French were surrendered to Major Rogers, a person again to be spoken of. The population according to the Governor, left of French origin, was 70,000.

The Canadians who did not return to France repaired to their homes and renewed their peaceful avocations.

The first British Governor, Sir Jeffry Amherst, entered upon his functions 1763.

We have now very cursorily indeed, noticed the history of the French Canadians up to the time they became British subjects. We have seen they did not willingly become such; yet scarcely fifteen years were to pass away before their loyalty to the British flag was to be tested; not indeed to decide whether they should again become a part of France, rather than remain British, but whether their condition as British subjects was so intolerable that they should seek other protection of a foreign origin.

We shall see that although promises were held out of great political advantage they preferred to remain as they were. There remained in the hearts of the Canadian French, not so much a dislike to England as a detestation to the New Englander. Hence it was that when the rebel banner was unfurled in 1776, with the declaration of American Independence upon it, no Canadian rallied around it. Although commissioners from the rebel congress visited them with honied words and fair promises, they received no friendly welcome. The Canadians regarded their old enemies as enemies still, and they turned their backs upon the revolting provinces and their faces toward old England for protection. The commissioners to the Canadians, composed of Dr. Benj. Franklin, Samuel Chase and Charles Carrol, with his brother, a Jesuit Priest were appointed to this mission, on the 15th February, 1776. The same Franklin who now offered the French “freedom,” had urged upon the British in 1753 the expediency of reducing Canada!!

For a century and a half France endeavored in vain to erect a power in America; but shall we say that it was all in vain?

The monument although broken, so far as France is concerned yet stands a lasting memorial of French energy, of religious fervor, stern determination, and indomitable valor. And, when the wave of revolution passed over the thirteen British Colonies, the column was conspicuous enough to be seen by refugees; the protection Canada offered was sufficient for the homeless families of U. E. Loyalists. Canada was a sacred spot, although French. It constituted a nucleus, around which collected those who preferred order to rebellion. Those who had fought as opponents at Duquesne, at Niagara, at Frontenac, at Tyconderoga, and upon the Plains of Abraham, were joined together. The heel, which had assisted to crush the Canadian French, now sought and found a resting place among those who had been overcome. Thus was to be laid the foundation of the Dominion of Canada, whose future is to be great. Stretching from seaboard to seaboard, it is destined to become, ere it has reached the present age of the United States, the Russia of America, with the purest principles of government the world has ever known.

We now approach the period of time when another element of discord was to appear among the races which inhabited America. Bloody Indian wars had in the past swept back and forth across the woody land. Rival colonizers had resorted to strife, to extend territorial power. European weapons had been transported to wage wars of extermination. Conquest and subjugation of Indians and rivals had been witnessed; but now Rebellion, a term that has received fresh significance in the late civil war in the United States, was to be initiated. The British blood and money which had been lavishly spent for the Anglo-Americans, had only prepared those colonists to seek other advantages. The Indians held in subjection, the French conquered, the mother country itself must now be coerced to give full rein to the spoiled and wayward offspring.

DIVISION I.
THE REBELLION OF 1776—​THE THIRTEEN COLONIES.

CHAPTER III.

Contents—​First American Rebellion—​Independence—​Traitors made Heroes—​Loyalists driven away to found another Colony—​The responsibility of rebelling—​Treatment of the Loyalists—​The several Colonies—​The first Englishman in America—​Receives £10—​English Colonization—​Virginia—​Convicts—​Extent of Virginia—​First Governor—​Virginians not willing to rebel—​Quota supplied to the rebel army—​New York—​Hudson—​The Dutch—​New Netherlands—​Price of New Amsterdam (New York)—​First Legislative Assembly—​Not quick to rebel—​Quota of rebel troops—​Gave many settlers to Upper Canada—​New Jersey—​Its settlement—​A battle ground—​Gave rebel troops; also loyal troops—​Furnished settlers to Upper Canada—​Massachusetts—​Captain Smith—​New England Puritans—​The “Mayflower”—​First Governor—​Cruel treatment of Indians—​Massachusetts takes the lead in rebelling—​Troops—​Loyalists—​New Hampshire—​Troops—​Delaware—​Settlement—​Quota of rebel troops—​Connecticut—​Education—​Troops—​Roman Catholics—​Toleration—​Rhode Island—​Providence—​Inconsistency of the Puritans—​Roger Williams—​North Carolina—​Inhabitants—​South Carolina—​Many loyalists—​Pennsylvania—​William Penn—​Conduct toward Indians—​The people opposed to rebellion—​Georgia—​Oglethorpe—​Policy of England—​New England.

In the introductory chapters a brief sketch has been given of the settlement of America. We now approach the important events which belong to the first great American rebellion, which culminated in the Declaration of Independence by the thirteen British American Colonies, and terminated in the recognition of their independence by the parent State. The rebellion had resulted in a revolution, and traitors were made heroes!

It forms a part of the present undertaking to record some of the facts relative to the steps by which the now powerful United States were, as a whole, ushered into the arena of nations, and by which a large class of Americans, true to their British allegiance, were compelled to leave their native country to found another colony in the northern wilderness. To be justified in rebelling against the constituted authorities there must be the most cogent reasons; to take up arms against the State—​to initiate a civil war, is assuming the most fearful consequences.

To present even a brief account of the circumstances which led to the settlement of Upper Canada, it becomes necessary to dwell for a time upon the great rebellion of 1776, the result of which was adverse to those Americans who adhered to the old flag under which they had been born, had come to the new world, and had prospered; a rebellion which was attended and followed by persecution and violence, imprisonment and confiscation, banishment, and, too often, death; which caused a stream of refugee loyalists to set in toward the wilderness of Canada.

At the time of the rebellion of the English colonists in America, they consisted of thirteen provinces. Massachusetts, with her colony of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. It may be well to briefly notice these several states, and the part each took in the war for Independence.

The first Englishman to set foot upon the continent of America was John Cabot, who discovered Newfoundland, and probably the adjacent mainland, June 4, 1497. The event is noticed in the Privy Purse expenditure thus: “1497, Aug. 10—​To hym that found the new Isle, £10,” which seems to have been a grant for his services.

VIRGINIA.

In the year 1578, Sir H. Gilbert endeavoured to establish a settlement at the mouth of the Roanoke. Failing in his undertaking, his half brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, made a similar effort the following year, which likewise failed. It was Sir Walter Raleigh who gave the name to Virginia, in honor of Elizabeth, the virgin Queen. A third and successful effort was made to colonize in 1607–8, at Jamestown. This dates the commencement of English colonization of America. Some time later, America was looked upon as a country quite beyond the pale of civilization, even as Botany Bay was at a still later period; and in the year 1621, the British Government transported to Virginia 100 convicts. But notwithstanding, “Virginia,” to use the words of Morse’s Geography, “the birth-place of Washington, has given six Presidents to the Union.”

The colony of Virginia was originally indefinite in its boundary; and, judging from old maps, it would seem to have included all of North America. But a map dated 1614 shows the more northern part as New England. The first Governor of Virginia entered upon his duties in 1619.

This State was by no means quick to sever the connection with the mother country. Many of her sons stood up for the crown, and very many families became refugees. Washington said of Virginia, in a letter, that “the people of Virginia will come reluctantly into the idea of independence.” But in time, by the specious representations of Washington and others, the State produced a certain number of rebels. The quota demanded by the rebel congress was 48,522. She supplied, in 1776, 6,181; and afterwards 20,491.

NEW YORK.

In the year 1609 Hendrick Hudson, an Englishman, in the employ of Holland, first explored the great river running through New York State, which now bears his name. He, on behalf of the Dutch took possession of the country. Settlement first took place in 1614, and by 1620, a considerable colony was planted. The island of Manhatten, where now stands New York City, was honestly purchased of the Indians for twenty-four dollars. The village thus founded was called New Amsterdam, and the colony was designated New Netherlands.

Having been taken by the English in 1674, the name of the territory was changed to New York, after James, Duke of York, brother to Charles II. The first Legislative Assembly for this Province, met in New York, 17th October, 1683, just one hundred years before Upper Canada began to be settled.

The State of New York was not among the foremost in rebelling. The Dutch element which prevailed, was not given to change. Some of the most exciting events and battles of the war were enacted in this State. Right royally did the people take up arms against the rebels and drive Washington from Manhatten. Battalions and regiments were repeatedly raised and organized in this State. The valleys of the Mohawk and Hudson became historic grounds. Here was witnessed the ignoble failure of Burgoyne’s Campaign, which was the commencement of the decline of British power; and the City of New York was the last ground of the States occupied by British troops, until the war of 1813. New York furnished troops for the rebel cause, in 1775, 2,075; in 1776, 3,629; and subsequently 12,077.

Of all the States, New York gave the largest number of pioneers to Upper Canada.

NEW JERSEY.

New Jersey was settled in 1620 by the Dutch and Swedes. Having been taken by the English, it was given by Charles II. to the Duke of York. Retaken by the Dutch in 1673, it was bought by Wm. Penn and his friends. At one time it was divided into East Jersey and West Jersey, East Jersey belonging to Penn. In 1702 the two Jersies were united under one government, and received the name of New Jersey.

Upon the grounds of this State were fought some of the most decisive battles of the war.

Of the Rebel troops Jersey supplied in 1676, 3,193. The quota required afterwards was 11,396—​of which she granted 7,534. But Jersey also gave a large number of Royal troops.

New Jersey furnished a good many settlers to Upper Canada, of whom one of the most distinguished is the Ryerson family. Many of the settlers along the bay retain interesting traditions of their Jersey ancestry.

MASSACHUSETTS.

The territory of this State was originally discovered by the Cabots in 1497, and visited by Capt. John Smith in 1614, by whom it was said to have been named New England. It consisted of the present States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In 1620, upon 22nd December, the Puritan Fathers landed upon the Plymouth Rock, some 30 miles from Boston, and planted the first of the New England States. The “Mayflower,” by which they had traversed the Atlantic was only 180 tons burden. She sailed from Southampton with 102 emigrants. Half of this number died from cold and hardship the first year. They selected for their first Elder one John Carner, who as chief officer had great control. He has consequently been called the first Governor of New England. The territory had been granted by James I. to the “Plymouth Company.” Although the Puritans had left their homes because they did not enjoy their rights, they forgot the Golden Rule in their forest homes. They failed to remember that the Indian had rights. The untutored native thought he had a right to the soil, and as the Puritans, unlike Penn, were unwilling to recognize his rights, but undertook to appropriate the territory, there ensued bloody Indian wars. The Puritan revenged himself, and the native retaliated. So, for many years border massacres were common and terrible.

Massachusetts with the other New England States, took the lead in rebellion, and by great pains succeeded in indoctrinating the midland and Southern States. The first blood of the rebellion was shed in this State, at Lexington and Bunker Hill. The State supplied troops in 1775, 16,444; in 1776, 13,372. The quota subsequently required was 52,728, of which 38,091 was furnished.

But Massachusetts had not a few true-hearted loyalists of whom a considerable number became settlers in Upper Canada. At the evacuation of Boston “1,100 retreated in a body with the Royal army. Altogether there left Massachusetts at least 2,000 United Empire Loyalists.” The Colony of Maine also had a good many adherents of the crown—​(Sabine.)

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

This Province was first colonized by emigrants from Hampshire, England, in 1623. Subsequently it was peopled by English from other parts, and by Scotch.

New Hampshire supplied in 1775, 2,824 troops; in 1776, 3,012. Her quota was 10,194. Granted 6,653. We are at the same time assured by Sabine that New Hampshire had many and powerful opponents of rebellion.

DELAWARE.

Delaware was originally settled by Swedes and Finlanders in 1627. Became a part of New Netherlands in 1655, and in 1664 fell to the English. It was included in the grant of Wm. Penn in 1682. In 1701 it was erected into a colony for legislative purposes.

She supplied rebel troops in 1776, 609. Her quota fixed was 3,974. Supplied 1,778.

CONNECTICUT.

Connecticut was first occupied by emigrants in 1631. The Charter was granted by Charles II., which continued in existence until 1818, when it was superseded by the existing constitution. Connecticut “has uniformly been a nursery of educated men of every class” for the Union. And, it may be added, a number found their way to Upper Canada, as school teachers, subsequent to the Revolution. And there was a certain number of the people of Connecticut among the Loyalists. Sabine says a good many.

This State furnished for the rebel war in 1775, 4,507; in 1776, 6,390. The quota fixed was 28,336, of which was given 21,142.

MARYLAND.

Maryland was granted to the second Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, by Queen Mary, in 1632 or 4. He colonized the Province with a company of Co-religionists of the higher class of English gentry. It was named after the English Queen, Henrietta Maria. “In 1649, it was made, as has been well said, ‘a land of sanctuary,’ by the toleration of all religious denominations, but the Puritans, expelled from Virginia, made great trouble in the Colony.”

The State supplied troops in 1776, 637. Quota fixed by congress 26,608, of which she supplied 13,275.

RHODE ISLAND.

Massachusetts, planted by Puritans, who came to secure liberty of conscience, would not allow certain individuals in their midst to enjoy like religious liberty, and hence the foundation of Rhode Island. Providence, its original name, was thus significantly called, because here the Baptists, under Roger Williams (oppressed by the Puritans of Plymouth), found a providential asylum. This was in 1636. In how short a time (16 years) had the oppressed learned to act oppressively!

A charter was granted to Roger Williams in 1642. The government continued to exist under this charter until 1842, a period of 200 years.

Rhode Island gave troops to the number of 1,193 in 1775, and 798 in 1776. Quota demanded, 5,694; furnished 3,917.

NORTH CAROLINA.

This colony was planted in 1653 by the older colony of Virginia. The colony at first included both North and South Carolina, which continued until 1693, when the south part was erected into a separate colony, under the name of South Carolina. The inhabitants of North Carolina consisted, in part, of refugees from England at the overthrow of the Stuarts. These mainly remained loyal to the crown, and were destined to again become refugees. At the commencement of the rebellion the people of this colony were about equally divided between the adherents of the crown, and the rebels. The loyalists were a devoted band. At the same time, the rebels—​at least some of them—​took extreme steps. They formally demanded a separation from Great Britain in May, 1775, fourteen months before the 4th July declaration of 1776. The State provided, in 1776, 1,134 rebel troops. The quota asked for was 23,994, but only 6,129 was granted.

SOUTH CAROLINA.

South Carolina was first settled in 1670.

“The great body of the people were emigrants from Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, and the northern colonies of America, and their descendants, and were opposed to a separation from the mother country;” yet South Carolina furnished troops for the rebellion, in 1776, to the number of 2,069. Subsequently she gave 4,348; although her quota, as fixed by Congress, was 16,932.

In this colony were many who could not see the justice of a rebellion. Yankee descendants may say they “bowed their necks to the yoke of colonial vassalage,” but it was a wise spirit of conservatism which is expressed in the desire to “look before you leap.” “Persons who had refused to enlist under the whig banner, flocked to the royal standard by hundreds.” “Sir Henry Clinton informed the British Government that the whole State had submitted to the royal arms.” This general attachment to the British crown made the rebels vindictive and bloodthirsty, and they sought to drive away the loyal and peaceable by a vengeful shedding of blood. Consequently, the tories retaliated, and Chief Justice Marshall said, “the whigs seem determined to extirpate the tories, and the tories the whigs; some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter.” “Being almost equally divided, reciprocal injuries had gradually sharpened their resentment against each other, and had armed neighbour against neighbour, until it became a war of extermination.” Now, it is submitted that rebellion can hardly be justified when the people are so equally divided. Sabine remarks that “after the fall of Charleston, and until the peace, the tories were in the ascendant.”

PENNSYLVANIA.

This splendid colony was granted to William Penn, the Quaker and philanthropist, who was the son of Sir William Penn, an eminent English admiral. Sir William held a claim against the British government for £16,000; and, some time after his death, his son having his attention directed to the new world, obtained, in lieu of that amount, the grant of land now forming this State. The charter was granted by Charles II. in 1681. Penn sought the new world to escape the persecutions inflicted upon him at home. This he had brought upon himself, by freely expressing his decided sectarian views, and by writings, disseminating the teachings of George Fox, also by attacking the Established Church. He was repeatedly imprisoned in the Tower, and even in Newgate for six months. Penn, on procuring the grant of land, determined to make it “a home for his co-religionists, where they might preach and practice their convictions in unmolested peace.” To the territory he gave the name of Sylvania; but afterwards King Charles insisted that Penn should be prefixed, making it Pennsylvania. Penn sailed from England, with several friends, in August, 1682. On reaching America he found that some Swedes and Finns had settled along the banks of the Delaware. Although Penn had a charter by which he could possess the land, yet, as an European, he did not forget the original and rightful owners of the soil. Penn’s conduct in this respect stands out in striking contrast to the course pursued by the Puritans. It was on the 30th November, 1682, that William Penn held his famous interview with the Indian tribes, when he effected a straightforward treaty with them, never to be broken or disturbed, so that he secured perpetual peace and respect. By this humane course with the Indians, and by encouraging emigration of all classes, securing to them the fullest liberty of conscience by a wise constitution, he succeeded, with his co-religionists, in building up a most flourishing colony. Subsequently the population was enlarged by numerous accessions from Scotland and Germany.

The government of Pennsylvania was proprietary, and continued such until the revolution swept away the charter, and made the children of William Penn outcasts from the land they and their fathers had made fertile. At the time of the revolution, John Penn, son of Richard Penn, who was the grandson of William Penn, was the Governor of the colony. He, with the masses of the people in the middle States, was opposed to the rebellion. It is said there were thousands of loyalists in this State who desired and offered to serve the crown, but whose services were lost through bungling by those in office. Yet the State gave troops to the rebel cause; 400 in 1775, and in the following year 5,519. The quota allotted was 40,416; granted, 19,689.

GEORGIA.

This was the last of the thirteen colonies established. The founder was Oglethorpe, who effected a settlement in 1773, and who lived to see the colony a State. The colonists landed at Charleston in January, 1733.

When the rebellion broke out, this colony was “justly regarded as highly loyal.” She refused to send delegates to the first rebel congress; “and that she was represented in the second was owing to the zeal of a native of Connecticut, Dr. Seymour Hall. It required time and labour to organize a party of ‘liberty men’ to complete the Confederacy.” The number of troops supplied in 1775 was 350; the quota was fixed at 3,974, and there was supplied 2,328.

The history of England between the periods when Virginia and Georgia, the oldest and youngest of the colonies that rebelled, were founded, was one of turmoil and strife, of religious contentions and civil war; and the colonists cast off during this hundred years carried with them, across the Atlantic, heartfelt bitterness, and many of them no little passion for evil. Notwithstanding, we have seen that the Southern States, with Pennsylvania and New York, did not seek to divide their connection with the parent State. It was generally admitted that the policy of England towards them “had been mild—​perhaps liberal.” But, as we have seen, New England, with a few malcontents in other states—​envious office-seekers, managed to disseminate the principles of rebellion—​principles that New England has quite forgotten in her treatment of the South.

NEW ENGLAND.

Of the aforementioned colonies, they all had received and had secured to them by charter, from an indulgent mother country, governments of the most liberal nature. Civil and religious liberty were fully enjoyed. Says Mr. Sabine: “Virtually, republican charters; subject only to the appointment of a governor on the part of the Crown. Every colony was, practically, a State within itself; and it is a suggestive fact that the very earliest assertion of legislative superiority on the part of the mother country only operated negatively, by forbidding every colony to make laws repugnant to those of England.”

Certain of the British colonies were, together, called “New England,” and since the Independence they are known as the New England States. They consist of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine, which was then a colony of Massachusetts. This region was granted by James I. to the Plymouth Company in 1606. It was called North Virginia, but it was changed some years later, before it was actually settled. It was the people of these States to whom the term “Yankee” was originally applied; and now, in the United States, this epithet is used solely in reference to these States; but in Canada and England the word is applied very generally to all Americans. The origin of the word Yankee is probably traceable to the Indian appellation “Yengee,” for English, or Anglais, after the French.

CHAPTER IV.

Contents—​American Writers—​Sabine—​Loyalists had no time to waste—​Independence not sought at first—​Adams—​Franklin—​Jay—​Jefferson—​Washington—​Madison—​The British Government—​Ingratitude of the Colonists—​Taxation—​Smugglers—​Crown Officers—​Persistence—​Superciliousness—​Contest between Old England and New England.

It is most refreshing to one who has been accustomed to see American school books, and even religious American tracts thickly strewn with the most fulsome self-praise, and wordy accounts of British tyranny, and of American purity and valor; to read the speeches, and listen to 4th of July orators, who, with distorted history and hifalutin panegyrics, have not ceased to wrap their country in a blazing sheet of glory. After suffering all this, ad nauseam, it is most agreeable to read the writings of one American author upon the subject of their Independence, who can do some justice to the Loyalists. Reference is made to Lorenzo Sabine, the author of “Royalists of the American Revolution.” Considering the prejudices which exist throughout the United States against every thing British, and the overweening vanity of the people in respect to the success which crowned their efforts to dismember the British Empire; it is a matter for grateful recognition that a native of New England should take up his pen to write redeeming words on behalf of the Loyalists whom they had been taught to stigmatize, to be read by his fellow countrymen. Living upon the borders, beyond which he could see the settled refugees working out their destiny, under adverse circumstances, and laying the foundation of a nation, he took up his pen, while the Upper Canadians were yet struggling with the forest, and without time to gather up the records of their wrongs, their losses, their persecutions, and more than all, the malicious charges against them; and hurl them back at their traducers. On behalf of those who will accept the writer as a representative of the United Empire Loyalists, he thanks Lorenzo Sabine, for what he has said. He has said nothing but the substantial truth in our favor, and in saying that, he has said very much. In his prefatory remarks, after referring to their deficiency of knowledge of the “Tories” he says, “The reason is obvious. Men who, like the Loyalists, separate themselves from their friends and kindred, who are driven from their homes, who surrender the hopes and expectations of life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and exiles,—​such men leave few memorials behind them. Their papers are scattered and lost, and their very names pass from human recollections.”

Before considering the question, whether the American colonies were justified in taking an extreme step; it is most necessary to state that, at the first there were but an insignificant number of the colonists who held the belief that armed rebellion was demanded. Even among those who, with no mild-toned language denounced the mother country for enacting laws oppressive to the commerce and industry of the Americans, no one was found to advocate separation; on the contrary to use the words of Sabine “The denial that independence was the final object, was constant and general.” To obtain concessions and preserve the connection with England, was affirmed everywhere; and John Adams, years after the peace, went further than this, for he said ‘There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.’ Again, Franklin’s testimony, a few days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had “more than once travelled from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking, and conversing with them freely, and never had heard in any conversation from any person drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.” Mr. Jay is quite as explicit. “During the course of my life and until the second petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of any class, of any description, express a wish for the independence of the colonies. It has always, and still is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.” Says Mr. Jefferson, “What, eastward of New York, might have been the dispositions toward England before the commencement of hostilities, I know not, but before that I never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great Britain, and after that, its possibility was contemplated with affliction by all.” Washington, in 1774, sustained these declarations, and, in the “Fairfax County Resolves” it was complained, that “malevolent falsehoods” were propagated by the ministry to prejudice the mind of the king; particularly that there is an intention in the American colonies to set up for independent States; and Washington expressed a wish that the “dispute might be left to posterity to determine.” Mr. Madison was not in public life until May, 1776, but he says, “It has always been my impression, that a re-establishment of the colonial relations to the parent country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the real object of every class of the people, till the despair of obtaining it.”

The testimony of these Fathers of the Republic, cannot be impeached; and, we must, therefore, seek for the cause of the rebellion in some other place. We have seen how the British colonies were planted. In connection with them, two leading influences may be discovered constantly at work, one of a personal nature; the other referring to the State. Individuals would not sever the ties of home-ship and brave the wide ocean, to expose themselves to the varied dangers of the wilderness, did they not have good reason to expect due returns. The Government would not afford ships and means to send her sons to distant shores, unless the colony would become serviceable to the parent State. The British Government had enabled many a hardy son to lay the foundation for substantial wealth. More than all, the colonies of America had been assisted to put under their feet their French rival. For their benefit the Crown expected, and undertook to enforce some tribute. But the colonists would not recognize the right of the Crown to tax them for their labor. For all the British Government had done for the colonies, for all the money spent, she required that the colonists should be taxed. Laws were enacted, and officers and revenue collectors appointed to enforce the laws. It was required that these colonies should not trade, without certain restrictions, with foreign nations; but the merchants of Massachusetts, having tasted the sweets of unrestricted trade, were unwilling to pay revenue to the Crown, although trading under the protection of the British flag. And so it came that when royal collectors of customs were sent out; when men of war coasted the shores of Massachusetts to prevent smuggling, by Hancock and others, there was no disposition to submit to Imperial taxation. For years the law relating to revenue had been a dead letter almost, the smugglers having used hush money. But at last Government determined to put down illicit trade. It is true the colonies did not object without a special plea, which was “no taxation without representation.” But the real points at issue were, whether contraband commerce should continue and increase, or the Crown receive the dues demanded by law. “Nine-tenths probably, of all the tea, wine, fruit, sugar, and molasses, consumed in the colonies were smuggled. To put this down was the determined purpose of the ministry. The commanders of the ships of war on the American station were accordingly commissioned as officers of the customs; and, to quicken their zeal, they were to share in the proceeds of the confiscations; the courts to decide upon the lawfulness of seizures, were to be composed of a single judge, without a jury, whose emoluments were to be derived from his own condemnations; the Governors of the colonies and the military officers were to be rewarded for their activity by swearing also, either in the property condemned, or in the penalties annexed to the interdicted trade.” And was not the Crown correct in enforcing laws intended for the public weal? Had hostile fleets approached Boston harbour to invade, instead of smuggling crafts, freighted with luxuries, would not the colonist have called loudly for Imperial help to protect? But if the Government had the best of rights to enforce the laws, it certainly displayed much want of judgment in the mode adopted to carry out its demands. The foregoing, from Sabine, recalls to us at once the cause why resistance was strenuously made. The mode of paying their Crown officers was well calculated to kindle feelings of the most determined opposition on the part of the illicit traders, such as John Hancock, John Langdon, Samuel Adams, William Whipple, George Clymer, Stephen Hopkins, Francis Louis, Philip Livingston, Eldridge Gerry, Joseph Hewes, George Taylor, Roger Sherman, Button Gurnett, and Robert Morris, all signers of the declaration of independence,—​all smugglers!

And thus it came about. The Crown was determined to exact taxes, and ignorant of the feelings of the colonists; and the colonists, grown rich by unrestricted trade—​by smuggling, entered into a contract, which was only to end in dismemberment of the British Empire. Side issues were raised, cries of oppression shouted, the love of liberty invoked and epithets bandied; but they were only for effect, to inflame the public mind, of which there was much wavering. Of course, there were other things which assisted to ripen rebellion, at least were so represented, that they added to the growing discontent. Colonies, when they have become developed by age, and powerful by local circumstances, will naturally lose the interest which animates the subject at home. It is in the nature of things that the love of country should gradually change from the old home to the new. The inhabitants of the colonies were in many cases but descendants of European nations, who could not be expected to retain the warmest attachment to the parent country. The tide of war had changed the allegiance of many a one. The heterogeneous whole could not be called English, and hence it was more easy to cast aside the noble feeling called patriotism. Then there were jealousies of the Crown officers, and everything undertaken by the home government, having the appearance of change, was promptly suspected as being intended to degrade them. The exclusiveness of the regular army and superciliousness to the provincial troops, during the French war, caused many a sting, and the thought of insult to the provincial officer remained to rankle and fester in the mind of many a military aspirant. The proposal to introduce Episcopal Bishops, to give precedence to the Established Church, had its effect upon many, yet many of the non-conformists were equally loyal.

The contest was originally between New England and Old England. While the Middle and Southern States were for peace, or moderate measures, the north sedulously worked to stir up strife by disseminating specious statements and spreading abroad partisan sentiments. Massachusetts took the lead. Founded by Puritans, (who, themselves were the most intolerant bigots and became the greatest persecutors America has seen,) these States possessed the proper elements with which to kindle discontent.

Thus we have learned that independence was not the primary object of revolt, and we have seen that the leaders in rebellion were principally New Englanders, and were actuated mainly by mercenary motives, unbounded selfishness and bigotry.

CHAPTER V.

Contents—​The signers of the Declaration of Independence—​Their nativity—​Injustice of American writers for 80 years—​Cast back mis-statements—​The whigs had been U. E. Loyalists—​Hancock—​Office-seekers—​Malcontents stir up strife—​What the fathers of the Republic fought for—​Rebel committees—​Black mail—​Otis, John Adams, Warren, Washington, Henry, Franklin—​What caused them to rebel—​What the American revolutionary heroes actually were—​Cruelty, during and after the war—​No freedom—​The political mistake of the rebels in alienating the loyalists—​The consequence—​Motives of the loyalists—​False charges—​Conscientious conservatives—​Rebellion not warranted—​Attachment to the old flag—​Loyalists driven away—​Suppressio veri—​Want of noble spirit towards the South—​Effects—​Comparison between loyalists and rebels—​Education—​Religion—​The neutral—​The professions.

Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence nine were born in Massachusetts, seven in Virginia, six in Maryland, five in Connecticut, four in New Jersey, four in Pennsylvania, four in South Carolina, three in New York, three in Delaware, two in Rhode Island, one in Maine, three in Ireland, two in England, two in Scotland, and one in Wales. Of these twenty-one were attornies; ten merchants; four physicians; three farmers; one clergyman; one printer; and ten men of fortune.

THE MOTIVES.

But let us more carefully consider the motives in connection with the rebellion of ‘76. So assiduously have our fathers, the U. E. Loyalists, been branded by most American writers as altogether base, that it becomes us to cast back the mis-statements—​to tear away the specious covering of the American revolutionary heroes, and throw the sunlight of truth upon their character, and dispel the false, foul stigma, which the utterances of eighty years have essayed to fasten upon the noble band of Loyalists.

Up to 1776, the whigs as well as the tories were United Empire Loyalists; and it was only when the king’s forces required taxes; when the colonists were requested no longer to smuggle; when they could not dispossess the tories of the power and emoluments of office—​it was only then that the Declaration of Independence was signed by those more particularly interested. John Hancock, whose name stands first upon the document, in such bold characters, had been a successful smuggler, whereby he had acquired his millions, and no wonder he staked his thousands on the issue. Evidence is not wanting to show that many of the leaders of the rebellion, had they been holders of office, would have been as true to the British Crown as were those whom they envied. Every man who took part on the rebel side has been written a hero; but it is asking too much to request us to believe that all the holders of office were base, and lost to the feelings of natural independence and patriotism; more especially when a large proportion of them were, admittedly, educated and religious men; while, on the contrary, the rebels alone were actuated by patriotism and the nobler feelings of manhood. Apart from the merits or demerits of their cause, it must be admitted that the circumstances of the times force upon us the thought that a comparatively few needy office-seekers, or lookers-after other favors from the Crown, not being able to obtain the loaves and fishes, began to stir up strife. A few, possessed of sufficient education, by the aid of the wealthy contraband traders, were enabled, by popular sensational speeches and inflammatory pamphlets, to arouse the feelings of the uneducated; and, finally, to create such a current of political hatred to the Crown that it could not be stayed, and which swept away the ties that naturally attached them to Great Britain.

We may easily imagine the surprise which many experienced in after days, when the war had ended and their independence was acknowledged, to find themselves heroes, and their names commemorated as fathers of their country; whereas they had fought only for money or plunder, or smuggled goods, or because they had not office. In not a few cases it is such whose names have served for the high-sounding fourth of July orators; for the buncombe speechifier and the flippant editor, to base their eulogistic memoriams. Undoubtedly there are a few entitled to the place they occupy in the temple of fame; but the vast majority seem to have been actuated by mercenary motives. We have authenticated cases where prominent individuals took sides with the rebels because they were disappointed in obtaining office; and innumerable instances where wealthy persons were arrested, ostensibly on suspicion, and compelled to pay large fines, and then set at liberty. No feudal tyrant of Europe in the olden times enforced black mail from the traveller with less compunction than rebel “committees” exacted money from wealthy individuals who desired simply to remain neutral.

It has been said that Otis, a name revered by the Americans, actually avowed that he “would set Massachusetts in a flame, though he should perish in the fire.” For what? Not because he wanted liberty, but because his father was not appointed to a vacant judgeship! It is alleged that John Adams was at a loss which side to take, and finally became a rebel because he was refused a commission in the peace! It is said that Joseph Warren was a broken-down man, and sought, amid the turmoil of civic strife, to better his condition. And the immortal Washington, it is related, and has never been successfully contradicted, was soured against the mother county because he was not retained in the British army in reward for his services in the French war. Again, Richard Henry was disappointed in not receiving the office of stamp distributor, which he solicited. Franklin was vexed because of opposition to his great land projects and plans of settlement on the Ohio. Indeed it is averred that mostly all the prominent whigs who sided with the rebels were young men, with nothing to lose and everything to gain by political changes and civil war. Thus it will be seen that the so-called American revolutionary heroes have not altogether clean hands, however much they may have been washed by their descendants. The clothing placed upon them may conceal the dirt and dross and blood, but they are indelibly there.

It is not alone the motives which constituted the mainsprings of the rebels’ action that we place in the balance, but their conduct towards those who differed from them. Individual instances of cruelty we shall have occasion to introduce; but it may here be said that it was the tories who acted as the conservators of peace against a mobocracy, and consequently were made to suffer great afflictions. It was because of this they were forced away to live and die as aliens to the land of their birth. The tories were Americans as well as the whigs; and when at last Great Britain ceased to try to coerce the colonies, and their independence was secured, then a nobler spirit should have obtained among the conquerors, and no one, because he had conscientiously been a conservative, should have been treated with opprobrium. It always becomes the victorious to be generous; and we, with all respect to many American friends, submit that, had patriotism alone actuated the revolutionary party, the American loyalists would have been invited to join with the whigs in erecting a mighty nation. Had freedom, indeed, been the watchword then, as it has flauntingly been since, it would have been conceded that the tory had a right to his opinion as well as the whig to his. Do the Americans descant upon the wisdom and far-seeing policy of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and framed the constitution of the Union? Monroe, we doubt not, had a different opinion when he begot the doctrine “America for the Americans.” Had the U. E. Loyalists been treated honorably; had they been allowed but their rights; had they not been driven away; then the name British American would forever have passed away; and instead of a belt of British provinces on their north, to constitute a ceaseless cause of misunderstanding with England, the star-spangled banner would, doubtless, long ago, have peacefully floated over all our land. Looking at the subject from this (an American) stand-point, we see that a shortsighted policy—​a vindictive feeling, a covetous desire for the property of the tories—​controlled the movements of the hour; and when the terms of peace were signed the birthright of the American tory was signed away, and he became forever an alien. But, as we shall see, he, in consequence, became the founder of a Province which, like a rock, has resisted, and ever will resist, the northward extension of the United States.

MOTIVES OF THE LOYALISTS.

Whatever may have been the incentives to rebellion, yielded to by those who revolted, there cannot rest upon the mind of the honest reader of unbiassed history a doubt as to the motives of the loyalists. The home-spun eulogists of the United States revolutionary soldiers have never ceased to dwell upon the principles which fired the breasts of the patriots, and nerved their arms to deeds of daring and successful warfare; all the time observing silence respecting the bravery of those who, from the same walks of life, engaged in the strife as the determined antagonists to rebellion. They have again and again charged upon the “king’s men” that it was because they were servants of the Crown and feeders at the government stall that loyalty was assumed and fought for. But facts, when allowed to stand out uncovered by the cant of liberatists, declare, in words that may not be gainsayed, that there were a vast number who held no appointment under the Crown, yet who, from first to last, were true—​naturally true—​to their king and country. The great mass were essentially conservatives, called “tories.” They held the opinion that to rebel was not only unnecessary but wrong. They believed that the evils of which the colonists had just reason to complain were not so great as to justify the extreme step taken by the signers of the Declaration of Independence; that any injustice existing was but temporary and would, when properly and calmly represented to the home government, be remedied; that to convulse the colonies in war was an unjustifiably harsh procedure; and, entertaining such a belief, it is submitted that they were noble indeed in standing up for peace—​for more moderate measures. Moreover, not unlikely, many were impressed with the view that the disaffected were laboring under an erroneous idea of oppression; that the training incident to pioneer life, the previous wars with the French Canadians, the constant contentions with the Indians, had begotten false views of their rights, and made them too quick to discover supposed wrongs. Candidly impressed with such thoughts, they could not be otherwise than true to the natural instincts of their heart, and refuse to take part, or acquiesce in throwing overboard the government of England, and so become aliens to the flag under which they were born and had lived, and for which they had fought. Not many may cast aside their feelings of nationality; not many can forget the land of their birth; not a large number will bury the associations of a life-time without the most potent causes. And, doubtless, the Anglo-American who faithfully adhered to the old flag possessed all the ardor of a lofty patriotism. But the American writer has forgotten all this. In the broad sunlight of national success he has not discovered the sacred longings of the U. E. Loyalists for the Union Jack. Looking at the events of ‘76 by the lurid glare of civil war, his eyes are blinded to the fact that a noble band, possessing equal rights with the rebels, loved England, notwithstanding all her faults, and for that love sacrificed their all of worldly goods. The citizens of the United States would prefer to have it said in history that the U. E. Loyalists, in every instance, voluntarily left their homes during the war, or at its close. The loyalists are thereby, no doubt, made to appear more devotedly attached to the British Crown. But it is right to have it distinctly stated that American writers mostly make themselves guilty of suppressio veri. The latest instance of this is seen in a report to the Hon. Hugh McCullough, Secretary of the Treasury, prepared by E. H. Derby, Commissioner of the Treasury Department, dated January 1st, 1866, who, in remarking upon the British Colonial policy from 1776 down to 1830, takes occasion to say that, “at first there was little fellowship between the United States and the Provincialists, many of whom were descended from the loyalists who followed the British troops from our shores.” The fact is, however, that many of them were driven away. The tories were not loyal without sense; and when the fortune of war had turned against them, they would, in great numbers, have made the best of their changed condition, and have lived to become true citizens of the new-born nation. But this was not to be. The loyalists were to be made feel that they were outcasts. It is the same ignoble and unstatesmanlike course which is now being pursued toward the subdued South. They must needs be made to know they are rebels. It is a shortsighted policy, even as the former was. The former led to the establishment of a nation to their north, which will stand, even after the Union lies in fragments; the latter fosters a feeling of alienation, which will speak upon the first opportunity, in the thunder tones of war.

If a comparison is instituted between the rebels of 1776, and those who were conservators of peace, the contrast is found to be very great. It is charged against the loyalists that all office-holders were tories; but is this more worthy of remark than the fact that many became rebels because they could not obtain office. Nay, the latter is infinitely more heinous in its nature. If we look at the two parties, with respect to education and, it may be added, religion, it is found that the great bulk of the educated and refined, the religious classes, especially the clergy, the leading lawyers, the most prominent medical men, were all loyalists. It was not because they were office-holders, it was because they possessed a moral and elevated mind, educated to a correct standard. Then, again, there was a large class of citizens who loved retirement, and who begged to be allowed to remain neutral, but who were actually compelled to take sides with the rebels or be driven away.

The peaceably inclined, who looked for guidance to their spiritual instructors, generally beheld them, if not actually advocating the interests of the crown, at least setting an example against rebellion, and they were thus strengthened in their feelings of loyalty, or determination to remain neutral. The flame of patriotism was kept aglow in many a heart by the earnest prayer of the gospel minister. Says Sabine: “From what has now been said it is evident that a very considerable proportion of the professional and editorial intelligence and talents of the thirteen colonies was arrayed against the popular movement.” Again: “a large number of the clergy were United Empire Loyalists.” Also, “the giants of the law were nearly all loyalists.” The physicians were mostly tories, but were, as a general thing, not molested. “A few were banished; others became surgeons in the army.”

CHAPTER VI.

Contents—​Republicanism—​The lesson of the first rebellion—​The late civil war—​The Loyalists; their losses and hardships—​Ignored by Americans—​Unrecorded—​The world kept in ignorance—​American glory—​Englishmen—​Question of Colonial treatment—​The reason why Great Britain failed to subdue the rebellion—​Character of the rebel bravery—​The great result—​Liberty in England and United States contrasted—​Slavery—​The result to U. E. Loyalists—​Burgoyne—​Mobocracy—​Treatment from “Sons of Liberty”—​Old men, women and children—​Instances of cruelty—​Brutality—​Rapacity—​Torture—​The lower classes—​“Swamp Law”—​Fiendish cruelty—​Worse than Butler’s Rangers—​Seward and the Fenians—​Infamous falsification—​Close of the war—​Recognition of independence by Great Britain—​Crushed hopes of the Loyalists—​In New York—​Their conduct—​Evacuation day—​The position of the Loyalists—​Confiscation—​“Attainting”—​Seizing estates—​Paine—​Commissioners at Paris—​British Ministry—​Loyalists’ petition—​King’s speech—​Division of claimants—​Six classes—​The number—​Tardy justice—​Noble conduct of South Carolina—​Impostors—​Loyalists in Lower Canada—​Proclamation—​The soldiers’ families—​Journeyings—​Meeting of families.

THE RESULT.

Almost a hundred years have passed away since the war-cloud arose which swept away thirteen of Britain’s colonies upon the uncertain and tempest-tossed ocean of Republicanism. That storm is long since stilled, as well as the hearts of those who took part therein.

While the statesman and politician may, with advantage, study the lesson then read, and which has been but lately annotated by the United States civil war, by the determined subjection of eight millions of Southerners, who desired freedom to establish a new government, let it be our humble occupation to record some of the immediate individual results of that great tempest, of which American writers, with but few exceptions, have never spoken fairly. Writers among them are not wanting to give lively pen pictures of their revolutionary heroes; not only forgetting the sufferings of the loyalists—​the devoted ones, who gave up all—​property, homes, friends, all the associations of a birth-place, rather than bow the knee to Baal; but who have wilfully misrepresented them; have charged them with crimes, at once atrocious and unfounded. The sufferings, the losses, the hardships, incident to pioneer life, with the noble purposes and undeviating loyalty of the British American tories, have never been fully related—​never engaged the pen of the faithful historian. American writers, on the contrary, have recorded in glowing colors the deeds and actions of the “fathers of the Republic.” To this no objection; can be made; but may we not charge those historians with uncharitableness, with unnecessary neglect of the claims of the loyalists to pure motives, with ignoring their brave deeds, their devoted sufferings, and with unduly ascribing to the “king’s men” motives base and cruel. But the sufferings of the U. E. Loyalists are unrecorded. The world has rarely been told that they were persecuted, their homes pillaged, their persons maltreated, their valuables seized, their houses made desolate, their real estate taken from them, without legal proceedings. The world has been so flooded with the writings of Americans, describing their own excellencies and eulogizing their own cause, that no space has been found to do simple justice to the noble ones who preferred British rule to the uncertain and untried. Indeed, so strongly and for so long a time has the current been flowing to swell the ocean of American glory, that hardly a voice or pen is found doing service for the unfortunate loyalists, who chose to endure a little rather than rush into the vortex of rebellious strife. Even Englishmen have so long listened to one-sided statements, that no one of them can be found to say a word for the old tory party of America. Hence it is that the U. E. Loyalists are very imperfectly known; their history unwritten, their tales of sorrow unattended to, their noble doings unsung. Had there been a hand to guide a describing pen,—​to picture the doings, the sufferings, the self-denying heroism of the loyal party; to recount the motives underlying all they did; and had there been ears as willing to listen, and eyes to read, and hearts to receive the facts as those of a contrary nature have obtained, then a far different impression would have been made, and fixed upon the world.

That the British Government was right or wise in its treatment of the American colonies we now have every reason to doubt. At the same time, that England might have subdued that rebellion, had she put forth her undivided strength, there is but little reason to question. Had she not been engaged in a formidable war with France; or even with that, had her statesmen acquired a correct knowledge of America as to topography, and as to the feelings and wishes of the people and their just complaints; or had able generals been entrusted with the command of the armies, instead of incompetent favorites; or had a little diplomacy been practiced, and the ringleaders of the whig faction—​often hungry agitators—​been conciliated by office; in either event the rebellion might have been nipped in the bud, or easily overcome. The American Republic owes its independence to the circumstances in which Great Britain was then placed, and the incapacity of a few of the British Generals, rather than to superior bravery, extraordinary military talent, or any high-toned longing for liberty. No doubt many of the rebelling party were brave; but it was often the bravery of the guerilla, or the desperate adventurer.

Of the great result—​the recognition of the independence of the rebelling provinces by the mother country—​we design not to speak at length. It will always remain a question, whether it would not have been better for the States themselves, and the world at large, if they had remained a part of the British Empire. That the evils of which they complained would, in due time, have been removed, upon proper representation, there is no substantial reason to doubt. That the principles of true freedom would have advanced and spread quite as rapidly, and that, to-day, liberty, in the broadest sense, would have reigned in the world fully as triumphant, the whole history of England and the United States sufficiently attest. It was many long years after Britain had struck off the chains of slavery before the United States reached the same point; and then only because it became a “military necessity.” Looking at the two nations to-day, and judging by the utterances of the two respective people, whether enunciated in the halls of legislature, by the head of the nation, by the bar, in the pulpit, by the press, or from the platform; or if we be guided by the public deeds of each, it is submitted that the more genuine ring of the metal sounds from beneath the wide-spreading banner of old England.

The effect of the successful rebellion, to which it is intended to refer, has reference to the United Empire Loyalists of America. And first, the effect upon them during the war.

The defeat of Burgoyne was the first event which immediately led to severe disaster of the loyalists. This general, with more assurance than foresight, and perhaps more courage than military skill, succeeded, not only in leading his army to destruction, but in placing the friendly inhabitants on his route in such a position that no mercy was subsequently extended to them by the ruthless rebels. When he surrendered, instead of securing for them immunity from any harm, he entirely neglected their interests; notwithstanding they had supplied his troops with provision. The relentless conduct of the rebels in arms and the whig government was bloodthirsty and vindictive. Their hate towards those who would not take sides with them, whether in arms for the Crown or not, was barbarous. Persons suspected of sympathy with the tories were subjects of continued molestation. Mobocracy reigned. Vagabond bodies of men were sent abroad to range the country, to lay waste and destroy the property of the loyalists, imprison the suspected, and seize the goods of the unprotected. Tarring and feathering was of common occurrence. Massachusetts especially gained a name for cruelty far exceeding any which has been applied to the Indians, with all their barbarism. There was a villainous band who called themselves the “Sons of Liberty,” who carried fire and sword—​not against an open enemy in the light of day, but to peaceful firesides in the darkness of night. Their victims were the old men, the women and children, and the defenceless. Old men and children were driven to the woods for shelter, or placed in a closed room, and, with chimney stopped, smoked to suffocation. Females were subject to insult and the most fiendish treatment. Dwellings were fired at night, and their occupants left houseless, and exposed to the inclemency of the weather.

Suspected persons were arrested and put to terrible torture, such as attaching a rope to the neck and hauling the individual through the water till insensible; or suspending him to a tree till life was almost gone. This was frequently done with the object of extracting information as to the whereabouts of a father or a brother, or as to the place where money and valuables were concealed. The tales of cruelty the writer has heard related concerning the treatment the loyal party were exposed to, would harrow up the soul of any one possessing feelings of pity and commiseration.

The loyalists who immediately suffered, that is, while the war was in progress, were many. Military forts were established here and there, to which many fled precipitately from the several States.

It is a matter of extreme astonishment how men who set up the standard of revolt under the sacred name of liberty, could so far ignore the principles of liberty in the treatment of innocent old men, women and children, as we find stated by honest witnesses. The darkest tales of savage dealing come to us from our fathers. Families, whose sole offence consisted in being unwilling to rebel, and in being desirous to remain faithfully neutral, were the objects of the rapacious prey of a brutal soldiery. Their substance when not available for the rebel horde, was scattered to the winds. Devouring fire was cast into peaceful homes. How gross the hypocrisy, how base the motives that actuated very many of the adventurers in rebellion. The most hellish means were adopted at times, to force away persons of property, that the so-called “Sons of Liberty” might enjoy their substance and homes. Attending these scenes of desolation and refined cruelty, their imprisonments and torture, were incidents of thrilling interest, of fearful suffering, of hairbreadth escapes, of forlorn rescues.

The lower classes of those who rebelled were men of bold and lawless nature: whether we pass along the shores of New England, among the fishermen, or travel thorough the woods of Maine and New Hampshire, and become acquainted with woodmen of the forest, or as they were called “Loggers and Sawyers.” The spirit that animated the merchants of Boston and Salem, in their extended operations of smuggling, lived, also, in the reckless fishermen and woodmen; and for years before the rebellion really commenced they had been resisting, even by physical force, the revenue officers, who were often expelled from the woods by what was called “swamp law.” Men with such nature, finding that their lawlessness had become popular, and that steps were being taken to resist the government on a general plan, were not slow to act their part. One result of the rebellion was a determined and systematic course of retaliation upon those who had recognized the majesty of the law. A continued and uncompromising persecution was entered upon toward them.

No history can parallel the deeds of atrocity enacted by the villainous “Liberty men.” Said an old lady, on the verge of the grave, and with voice tremulous in remembrance of fiendish acts she had witnessed, “The Rebels, on one occasion entered a house and stripped it of everything, even the bed on which lay a woman on the point of confinement. But a single sheet was left to cover the woman upon a winter’s night, who, before morning became a mother.” In 1776, there arrived at Fort George, in a starving state, Mrs. Nellis, Mrs. Secord, Mrs. Young, Mrs. Buck and Mrs. Bonnar, with thirty-one children, whom the circumstances of the rebellion had driven away. Talk about the cruelty of Indians and of Tory oppression. The unprincipled rebels did well to try to hide their ignominious deeds behind the fabrications respecting the doings of Butler’s Rangers, and the noble-minded Brant. May we not cease to wonder that the descendants of the rebels in the year 1866, endeavour to hound on a pack of thieves and murderers to possess themselves of the homes our fathers sought out for us. The self-applauding writers of the revolutionary war, found it convenient to forget the doings of the “Sons of Liberty” and of Sullivan, while they laid to the charge of Butler’s Rangers and the Indians, acts of inhumanity (which we are informed on good authority are unfounded, Butler having never abused woman or child.) In the same manner, Secretary Seward found it desirable to falsify dates, by saying the Fenians invaded Canada on the 6th of June, that it might appear he had vindicated promptly their neutrality laws; whereas they actually crossed, and engaged in battle, on the morning of the 2nd. But as time will fully bring out the facts connected with the first American rebellion, and place them face to face with one-sided history, so will faithful history record the whole truth of the infamous invasion of our country by a band of American citizens with United States arms in their hands. Those deeds of blood, enacted by men under the hypocritical cry of liberty have not been forgotten by the United Empire Loyalists, but have been handed down to us, to place on record against the cruel actors.

Hostilities ceased 19th April, 1783, and on the 20th September, the independence of the United States was acknowledged.

The recognition of independence by Great Britain, was the death knell to the cherished hopes of the loyalists. Many had escaped into the provinces, and many were in the army, and not a few were in England. Although the majority of them had been driven away, a few still remained in those places, yet held by the British forces, as New York. “When the news of peace became known, the city presented a scene of distress not easily described. Adherents to the Crown, who were in the army, tore the lapels from their coats and stamped them under their feet, and exclaimed that they were ruined; others cried out they had sacrificed everything to prove their loyalty, and were now left to shift for themselves, without the friendship of their king or country. Previous to the evacuation, and in September, upwards of 12,000 men, women, and children, embarked at the city, at Long and Staten Islands, for Nova Scotia and the Bahamas,” and for Canada. “Some of these victims to civil war tried to make merry at their doom, by saying they were bound to a lovely country, where there are nine months winter and three months cold weather every year, while others, in their desperation tore down their houses, and had they not been prevented, would have carried off the bricks of which they were built.” The British had possessed New York since 15th September, 1776, and on the 25th November, 1783, yielded it up to the Americans. This is “Evacuation day.”

When Cornwallis surrendered he vainly tried to obtain a promise of protection for the Loyal Americans, who, in part, formed his army. Failing in this, he sent an armed vessel away with a large number.

At this time beside the many who had become refugees, there were some loyalists scattered through the States. Many of these remained in the now Independent States, and many of them would have returned, to become faithful citizens under the new order of things, had they been allowed so to do. But the young Republic knew not how to be magnanimous to those whom the fortunes of war had left in great distress—​whom they had conquered, and the United Empire Loyalists were made aliens from their native homes. Their property must be confiscated, and many being large land owners, rich prizes were thus secured. While the conflict continued to rage there was some excuse, but when war had ceased, and everything had been accomplished that the most craving rebel could wish, it was a ruthless, an ungenerous, nay, a base proceeding on the part of the revolutionists, to force away their very brethren, often related by the ties of consanguinity. But it was a spirit as unprincipled as this, which instigated the rebellion, and which characterized the vast majority of those who fought under the sacred name of liberty, and such was the spirit of the conquerors.

The successful rebels determined to possess themselves of the lands and property of the loyalists, even in violation of treaty. The action of Congress was sufficiently high-handed and wanting in generosity; but the proceedings of the State Legislatures, with a few exceptions, were execrable—​characterized by ignoble and vindictive passion.

The Legislatures of each state took early steps to punish the adherents of Britain, to dispossess them of their property, and to banish them. Massachusetts took the lead in dealing severely against the loyalists. A rebel magistrates’ warrant was sufficient to banish one. Hundreds of Massachusetts Loyalists were prohibited from returning on penalty of imprisonment and even death. And the other States were active in “attainting” and confiscating, often without the form of trial. Each State carried on its function as a government, and trials ought to have been granted, in common justice to every one. But the Whigs were intolerant, hot-headed, malevolent, unforgiving. It has been said that “if it be conceded that rebellion against England was right, then every step necessary to success was justifiable.” If we grant all this there remains the fact that after success had crowned rebellion, persecution and confiscation continued. New York, on the 12th May, 1784, passed “An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited estates within the States.” The powers consisted in the appointment of “commissioners of forfeitures.” Among those who lost their land was one Davoe. He had 300 acres near New York, twenty miles, which was confiscated and given to the notorious Tom Paine, the infidel, whose extreme liberal views expressed in his work, “Common Sense,” made him the friend of Washington, and revolutionists generally. Paine, after taking part in the French Revolutions, came, in 1802, to his place in New York, where he enjoyed the loyalists’ confiscated property until his death, 8th June, 1809.

In the terms of peace signed at Paris, there was no security effected for the losses sustained by the American Loyalists.

As Burgoyne at his inglorious surrender at Saratoga, thought not of the innocent inhabitants of the Mohawk and Hudson, who had identified themselves with the loyal cause, and supplied his troops with provisions, and left them to the merciless “Sons of Liberty,” to be despoiled of their all, and exposed to fearful cruelty, so at the last, when the British Government relinquished the attempt to subdue rebellion, the American Loyalists were of remote consideration. We can gather now but the outlines of this great wrong done unto noble men. The particulars are buried in the wreck of fortune, and of happiness, respecting all worldly matters. The after life of the loyalists was of too earnest a nature to allow time to place on record the sufferings, and the wanderings of the disinherited. The lost cause did not stimulate men to draw upon imagination, such as may be found in gaudy-hued descriptions of American revolutionary heroes, male and female. But there is sufficient of facts recorded, and engraven by the iron pen of extreme anguish upon hearts, that were of flesh, to stamp the persecutors with infamy, and mark the refugees, that clustered around the border forts, and found homes at Sorel, Lachine, and Montreal, with the highest attributes of patriotism and love of country.

The conduct of the ministry, and the commissioners at Paris is open to the severest censure. They left the claims of the loyalists to be decided by the American Congress. We may allow them the credit of having held the belief, that this body would be actuated by a feeling of justice and right, but the error was a grave one, the wrong grievous and hard to be endured. In pursuing this course, the British ministry did not escape condemnation by members of Parliament, and a feeling of sympathy was evoked that led to a tardy dispensing of justice. Lord North said “that never were the honor, the principles, the policy of a nation, so grossly abused as in the desertion of those men, who are now exposed to every punishment that desertion and poverty can inflict, because they were not rebels.” Mr. Sheridan “execrated the treatment of those unfortunate men, who, without the least notice taken of their civil and religious rights, were handed over as subjects to a power that would not fail to take vengeance on them for their zeal and attachment to the religion and government of the mother country,” “and he called it a crime to deliver them over to confiscation, tyranny, resentment and oppression.” Lord Loughborough said that “in ancient nor modern history had there been so shameful a desertion of men who had sacrificed all to their duty and to their reliance upon British faith.” Others, in terms of equal severity, denounced the ministry in Parliament for their neglect. The ministry admitted it all, but excused themselves by the plea that “a part must be wounded, that the whole of the empire may not perish”—​that they “had but the alternative, either to accept the terms proposed, or continue the war.”

“A number of loyalists in England, came to the United States to claim restitution of their estates, but their applications were unheeded,” except to imprison, and banish them.

The treaty of peace signed, without any provision for the suffering loyalists, they at once took steps to petition the Imperial Parliament for justice. “They organized an agency, and appointed a Committee, composed of one delegate, or agent from each of the thirteen States, to enlighten the British public.” “At the opening of Parliament the King, in his speech from the throne, alluded to the ‘American sufferers’ and trusted generous attention would be shewn to them.” An act was consequently passed creating a “Board of Commissioners” to examine the claims preferred. The claimants were divided into six classes.

“First Class.—​Those who had rendered service to Great Britain.”

“Second Class.—​Those who had borne arms for Great Britain.”

“Third Class.—​Uniform Loyalists.”

“Fourth Class.—​Loyal British subjects residents in Great Britain.”

“Fifth Class.—​Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States, but afterward joined the British.”

“Sixth Class.—​Loyalists who had borne arms for the American States, and afterwards joined the British navy or army.”

The claimants had to state in writing, and specifically the nature of their losses. Great and unnecessary caution was observed by the Board. The rigid rules of examinations caused much dissatisfaction and gave the Board the name of “Inquisition.”

The 26th of March, 1784, was the latest period for presenting claims, which was allowed, and on or before that day, the number of claimants was two thousand and sixty-three. A “second report which was made in December of the same year, shows that one hundred and twenty-eight additional cases had been disposed of.” In May and July 1865, one hundred and twenty-two cases more were disposed of. In April 1786, one hundred and forty more were attended to. The commissioners proceeded with their investigations during the years 1786 and 1787. “Meantime” and to her honor be it said “South Carolina had restored the estates of several of her loyalists.”

Years passed away before the commissioners had decided upon all the claims, and great and loud was the complaint made by the claimants. The press was invoked to secure a more prompt concession of justice, pamphlets were published on their behalf, and one printed in 1788, five years after the peace, contained the following: “It is well that this delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and shocking events. A number of the sufferers have been driven by it into insanity, and become their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless widows and orphans to subsist upon the cold charity of strangers. Others have been sent to cultivate a wilderness for their subsistence, without having the means, and compelled through want, to throw themselves on the mercy of the American States, and the charity of their former friends, to support the life which might have been made comfortable by the money long since due from the British Government, and many others, with their families are barely subsisting upon a temporary allowance from government, a mere pittance when compared with the sum due them.”

The total number of claimants was 5,072, of whom 924 withdrew or failed to make good the claim. The sum of money allowed was £3,294,452. We have seen there was, in addition, given to the widows and orphans, between 20,000 and 30,000 pounds.

There is no doubt that a certain number of the claimants were impostors, while many asked remuneration above what their losses had actually been, and this caused the commissioners to examine more closely the claims proffered. But it is submitted that they ought, in dealing with the money already granted by a considerate Parliament, to have leaned on the side of clemency.

At the close of the contest there were a large number of Refugees in Lower Canada, especially at Fort St. John, about twenty-nine miles from Montreal. In the main these were American born, and principally from the New England States; yet there were representatives from England, Ireland, Scotland and Germany. Besides the Refugees, there were several Provincial Corps, which were no longer to be retained in the service, but to be disbanded. Of these there was the 84th, often called Johnson’s regiment, this was 800 strong, mostly Dutch, from the Mohawk, and Hudson, descendants of the old stock. This regiment consisted of two corps, one under Major Jessup, stationed at St. John’s, and the other under Rogers, a part of which at least, was stationed at Fort Oswego. Jessup’s corps became the first pioneers upon the St. Lawrence, and Rogers among the first along the Bay of Quinté. Both settled in 1784. There were other troops stationed at St. John’s, and likewise not a few who had discharged irregular, but important duties, as scouts, and in other ways.

It has been generally estimated that at the close of the struggle, and as a result, there were distributed of American Loyalists upon the shores of Canada, about 10,000. At the first, most of these were in Lower Canada, but there were likewise a few at the frontier forts upon the Upper waters, and a few detached squatters. Then, “there was not a single tree cut from the (present) Lower Province line to Kingston, 150 miles; and at Kingston there were but a few surrounding huts; and from thence all around Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, with the exception of a few Indian huts on some desolate spot of hunting ground, all was a dense wilderness.” (Ex Sheriff Sherwood.)

“A proclamation was issued,” says Croil in his history of Dundas, “that all who wished to continue their allegiance to Britain, should peaceably rendezvous at certain points on the frontiers. These were, Sackets Harbour, Carleton Island, Oswego and Niagara, on the Upper Canada confines; and Isle Aux Nois, on the borders of Lower Canada. Jessup’s Corps was stationed at Isle Aux Nois, and late in the autumn of 1783, the soldiers were joined by their wives and little ones, who had wandered the weary way on foot, to Whitehall, through swamps and forest,—​beset with difficulties, dangers, and privations innumerable. The soldiers met them there with boats, and conveyed them the rest of their journey by water, through Lake Champlain. Imagination fails us when we attempt to form an idea of the emotions that filled their hearts, as families, that had formerly lived happily together, surrounded with peace and plenty, and had been separated by the rude hand of war, now met each other’s embrace, in circumstances of abject poverty. A boisterous passage was before them, in open boats, exposed to the rigors of the season—​a dreary prospect of the coming winter, to be spent in pent up barracks, and a certainty should they be spared, of undergoing a lifetime of such hardships, toil and privation, as are inseparable from the settlement of a new country.” As soon as the journey was accomplished, the soldiers and their families, were embarked in boats, sent down to Richelieu to Sorel, thence to Montreal, and on to Cornwall, by the laborious and tedious route of the St. Lawrence. (See settlement of Ernest town.)

CHAPTER VII.

Contents—​A spirit of strife—​The French war—​British American Troops—​Former comrades opposed—​Number of U. E. Loyalists in the field—​General Burgoyne—​Defeat—​First reverse of British arms—​The campaign—​Colonel St. Leger—​Fort Stanwix—​Colonel Baume—​Battle of Bennington—​General Herkimer—​Gates—​Schuyler—​Braemar Heights—​Saratoga—​Surrender—​The result upon the people—​Sir John Johnson—​Sir William—​Sketch—​Indian Chief—​Laced coat—​Indian’s dream—​It comes to pass—​Sir William dreams—​It also comes to pass—​Too hard a dream—​Sir John—​Attempt to arrest—​Escape—​Starving—​Royal Greens—​Johnson’s losses—​Living in Canada—​Death—​Principal Corps of Royalists—​King’s Rangers—​Queen’s Rangers—​Major Rogers—​Simcoe—​The Rangers in Upper Canada—​Disbanded—​The Hessians.

The seven years’ war between Canada and New England, in which a large number of the Colonists were engaged, had created not a few officers of military worth and talent, while a spirit of strife and contention had been engendered among the people generally. The Colonial war, carried on with so much determination, was stimulated, not so much by the English nation at home as by New Englanders. It was they who were chiefly interested in the overthrow of French power in Canada. While money and men had been freely granted by the Imperial Government, the several colonies had also freely contributed. They “furnished in that war quite twenty-eight thousand men, in more than one of the campaigns, and every year to the extent of their ability.” “On the ocean, full twelve thousand seamen were enlisted in the Royal Navy and in the Colonial Privateers.” In this manner had been formed a taste for military life, which waited to be gratified, or sought for food. When, therefore, the unsavory acts of England wounded the Colonial vanity, and demagogues traversed the country to embitter the feelings of the mass against the king, the hot-headed were not slow to advise an appeal to arms. At the same time, the loyal in heart, the conservators of Imperial interest, viewing with wonder and alarm the manifestation of fratricidal war—​of rebellion, felt it their duty to take up arms against the unprincipled (and often dishonest) agitators, and endeavor to crush out the spirit of revolt. And thus it came, that very many who had fought side by side at Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Duquesne, Niagara, Oswego, Frontenac, Montreal, and around Quebec, under a common flag, were now to be arrayed in hostile bands. Not state against state, nor yet merely neighbor against neighbor, but brother against brother, and father against son! Civil war, of all wars, is the most terrible: in addition to the horrors of the battle-field, there is an upheaving of the very foundation of society. All the feelings of brotherhood, of Christian love, are paralyzed, and the demon of destruction and cruelty is successfully invoked.

Behold, then, the British Americans divided into two parties; each buckling on the armor to protect from the other, and sharpening the weapons of warfare to encounter his kindred foe. The contest of 1776-‘83 is most generally looked upon as one between the English and Americans; but in reality it was, at first—​so far as fighting went—​between the conservative and rebel Americans. In an address to the king, presented by the loyalists in 1779, it is stated that the number of native Americans in his service exceeded those enlisted by Congress. Another address, in 1782, says that “there are more men in his Majesty’s provincial regiments than there is in the continental service.” Sabine says that “there were 25,000, at the lowest computation.” If such be the case, the question may well be asked, how came it that the rebels succeeded? Looking at the matter from our distant stand-point, through the light of events we find recorded, there seems but one conclusion at which we may arrive, namely, that the disaster to the British arms was due—​altogether due—​to the incapacity of certain of the generals to whom was intrusted the Imperial interests in America.

THE COMBATANTS—​BURGOYNE.

The most notable instance of mistaken generalship was that of Burgoyne. His campaign in the summer of 1777, and the final overthrow of his army and surrender at Saratoga, will engage our particular attention; inasmuch as it was the first decided reverse to the British arms, and by giving courage to the rebels, assisted much to further their cause. Thereby their faith was strengthened, and the number of rebels increased from no inconsiderable class, who waited to join the strongest party. Again, the scene of this campaign was close to the borders of Canada, and there followed a speedy escape of the first refugees from the Mohawk valley and the Upper Hudson to the friendly shores of the St. Lawrence.

A year had elapsed since the Declaration of Independence, and England had sent troops to America, with the view of assisting the forces there to subdue the malcontents. In the early part of July, Burgoyne set out from Lower Canada with about 8,500 soldiers, 500 Indians, and 150 Canadians, intending to traverse the country to Albany, possessing himself of all rebel strongholds on the way, and thence descend along the river Hudson, to New York, to form a junction with General Howe, that city having been captured from the rebels the 15th September previous. Passing by way of Lake Champlain, he encountered the enemy on the 6th July, and captured Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, with 128 cannon, several armed vessels, a quantity of baggage, ammunition and provisions. “This easy conquest inflamed his imagination.” The first step towards the defeat of his army was the unsuccessful attempt of Colonel St. Leger, with 800 men, who ascended the St. Lawrence to Oswego, and thence up the river, to take Fort Stanwix (Rome), intending to descend the Mohawk and join Burgoyne with his main force, as he entered the head of the valley of the Hudson. Colonel St. Leger arrived at Fort Stanwix on the 3rd August, 1777. For a time he was the winner; but for some reason, it is said that the Indians suddenly left him, and his troops, seized with a panic, fled. In the meantime, General Burgoyne was pursuing his way, having driven General Schuyler from Lake St. George to the mouth of the Mohawk river.

Burgoyne, flushed with this renewed success, after his late capture of Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, vainly supposed he could advance steadily down the Hudson. He sent a body of men, 500 strong, under Colonel Baume, into the interior, eastward, with the view of encouraging the inhabitants to continued loyalty, and of arresting the machinations of the rebels. Near Bennington the rebels had an important post, with magazines, and a large force under General Stark. Baume, ignorant of their strength, rushed headlong against the enemy. Nothing daunted, he led on his 500 brave men. For two hours he contended with the unequal foe, when his troops were almost annihilated, and he fell from his horse, mortally wounded. But few escaped to tell the tale. Meanwhile, Burgoyne, apprised of the danger surrounding Baume, had sent assistance under Colonel Breynan. Unfortunately, they had not much ammunition, and, after fighting until all was exhausted, they had to flee. These three reverses paved the way for the final overthrow of Burgoyne. He was still marching forward, bent on reaching Albany, to accomplish the object of the campaign—​a juncture with the army of General Howe. But now in his rear, to the west, instead of Colonel St. Leger descending the Mohawk, was General Herkimer, who had dispersed St. Leger’s force; and to the east was General Stark, flushed with his victories over Baume and Breynan. Burgoyne met Gates at last on Braemar heights, and again, and for the last time, led his troops on to victory, although the contest was well sustained. General Schuyler had intrenched his forces at the mouth of the Mohawk, and Burgoyne, having waited until his provision was exhausted, at last resolved to make an assault. It was bravely made, but without success; and before night-fall the army was retreating. Night, instead of enabling them to regain their spirits and renew their ardor, only brought the intelligence of the defeats previously sustained at Stanwix and Bennington. This was the 7th October. Flight now was the only possible chance for safety. The tents were left standing; his sick and wounded forsaken. But the enemy now surrounded him; the places he had taken were already re-taken; and upon the 10th of the month he found himself helpless upon the fields of Saratoga, where he surrendered. The whole of the men were sent to Boston and other places south, there to languish in prison.

Thus it came that the inhabitants in this section of the country came under the power of the rebels, and those who had adhered to the loyal side were mercilessly driven away at the point of the bayonet. The writer has heard too many accounts of the extreme cruelty practised at this time to doubt that such took place, or question the fiendish nature of the acts practised by the successful rebels against, not foes in arms, but the helpless. Many thus driven away (and these were the first refugees who entered Canada) suffered great hardships all through the winter. Most of the men entered the ranks subsequently, while not a few, from their knowledge of the country, undertook the trying and venturesome engagement of spies. The families gathered around the forts upon the borders had to live upon the fare supplied by the commissariat of the army. A large number were collected at Mishish; and the story goes that a Frenchman, whose duty it was to deal out the supplies, did so with much of bad conduct and cruel treatment.

SIR JOHN JOHNSON.

Among the officers who served with General Burgoyne was Sir John Johnson, who had been the first to suffer persecution, the first to become a refugee, and who became a principal pioneer in Upper Canada.

“His father, Sir William Johnson, was a native of Ireland, of whom it was said, in 1755, that he had long resided upon the Mohawk river, in the western part of New York, where he had acquired a considerable estate, and was universally beloved, not only by the inhabitants but also by the neighboring Indians, whose language he had learned and whose affections he had gained, by his humanity and affability. This led to his appointment as agent for Indian affairs, on the part of Great Britain, and he was said to be ‘the soul of all their transactions with the savages.’”

Of Sir William’s talents and shrewdness in dealing with the likewise shrewd Indian, the following is found in Sabine: “Allen relates that on his receiving from England some finely-laced clothes, the Mohawk chief became possessed with the desire of equalling the baronet in the splendor of his apparel, and, with a demure face, pretended to have dreamed that Sir William had presented him with a suit of the decorated garments. As the solemn hint could not be mistaken or avoided, the Indian monarch was gratified, and went away, highly pleased with the success of his device. But alas for Hendrick’s shortsighted sagacity! In a few days Sir William, in turn, had a dream, to the effect that the chief had given him several thousand acres of land. ‘The land is yours,’ said Hendrick, ‘but now, Sir William, I never dream with you again, you dream too hard for me.’”

At the breaking out of the revolutionary war, Sir John, who had succeeded to his father’s title, appears, also, to have inherited his influence with the Indians, and to have exerted that influence to the utmost in favor of the Royal cause. By this means he rendered himself particularly obnoxious to the continentals, as the Americans were then called. Accordingly, in 1776, Colonel Dayton, with part of his regiment, was sent to arrest him, and thus put it out of his power to do further mischief. Receiving timely notice of this from his tory friends at Albany, he hastily assembled a large number of his tenants and others, and made preparations for a retreat, which he successfully accomplished.

“Avoiding the route by Lake Champlain, from fear of falling into the hands of the enemy, who were supposed to be assembled in that direction, he struck deep into the woods, by way of the head waters of the Hudson, and descended the Raquette river, to its confluence with the St. Lawrence, and thence crossed over to Canada. Their provision failed soon after they had left their homes. Weary and foot-sore, numbers of them sank by the way, and had to be left behind, but were shortly afterwards relieved by a party of Indians, who were sent from Caughnawaga in search of them. After nineteen days of hardship, which have had few parallels in our history, they reached Montreal. So hasty was their flight, that the family papers were buried in the garden, and nothing taken with them but such articles as were of prime necessity.” Soon after his arrival at Montreal he was “commissioned a colonel, and raised two battalions of loyalists, who bore the designation of the Royal Greens. From the time of organizing this corps, he became one of the most active, and one of the bitterest foes that the whigs encountered during the contest. So true is it, as was said by the wise man of Israel, that ‘a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.’ Sir John was in several regular and fairly conducted battles. He invested Fort Stanwix in 1777, and defeated the brave General Herkimer; and in 1780 was defeated himself by General Van Rensselaer, at Fox’s Mills.”

The result of his adherence to the Crown was, that his extensive family estates upon the Mohawk were confiscated; but at the close of the war he received large grants of land in various parts of Canada, beside a considerable sum of money. He continued to be Superintendent of Indian affairs, and resided in Montreal until his death, in 1822.

THE LOYAL COMBATANTS.

The following are the principal corps and regiments of loyalists who took part in the war against the rebels, and who were mainly Americans:

“The King’s Rangers; the Royal Fencible Americans; the Queen’s Rangers; the New York Volunteers; the King’s American regiment; the Prince of Wales’ American Volunteers; the Maryland Loyalists; De Lancey’s Battalions; the Second American regiment; the King’s Rangers, Carolina; the South Carolina Royalists; the North Carolina Highland Regiment; the King’s American Dragoons; the Loyal American Regiment; the American Legion; the New Jersey Volunteers; the British Legion; the Loyal Foresters; the Orange Rangers; the Pennsylvania Loyalists; the Guides and Pioneers; the North Carolina Volunteers; the Georgia Loyalists; the West Chester Volunteers. These corps were all commanded by colonels or lieutenant-colonels; and as De Lancey’s battalions and the New Jersey Volunteers consisted each of three battalions, there were twenty-eight. To these, the Loyal New Englanders, the Associated Loyalists and Wentworth’s Volunteers, remain to be added. Still further, Colonel Archibald Hamilton, of New York, commanded at one period seventeen companies of loyal Militia.”

Respecting the officers and more prominent men of the corps, who settled in Canada, we have succeeded in collecting the following account.

THE QUEEN’S RANGERS.

This corps acted a very conspicuous part during the war. It was raised by Major Robert Rogers, of New Hampshire, son of James Rogers. He had served during the French war, with distinction, as commander of Rogers’ Rangers, and was, “in 1776, appointed Governor of Michilimackinac. During the early part of the rebellion he was in the revolting states, probably acting as a spy, and was in correspondence with the rebel Congress, and with Washington himself. He was imprisoned at New York, but was released on parole, which, it is said, he broke (like General Scott in 1812), and accepted the commission of colonel in the British army, and proceeded to raise the corps mentioned.” About 1777 “he went to England, and Simcoe succeeded him as commander of the Queen’s Rangers.”

Sabine, speaking of John Brown Lawrence, says he was imprisoned in the Burlington gaol, New Jersey, and that “Lieut.-Colonel John G. Simcoe, commander of the Queen’s Rangers, was a fellow-prisoner, and when exchanged said, at parting, ‘I shall never forget your kindness.’ He did not: and when appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, he invited Mr. Lawrence to settle there,” and, through the Governor, he acquired a large tract of land.

The Queen’s Rangers were disbanded in 1802, having been associated with the events of the first government of Upper Canada, their colonel (Simcoe) having been the first Governor. A detachment of this regiment were stationed upon the banks of the Don, before there was a single white inhabitant where now stands Toronto.

FERGUSON’S RANGERS.

This corps formed a part of Burgoyne’s army at the time of surrendering, and, “with other provincial prisoners, retired to Canada, by permission of Gates.”

THE HESSIANS.

The British Government, during the course of the war, procured some foreign troops from one of the German Principalities upon the Rhine, mostly from Hesse-Hamburg. This foreign legion was under the command of General Baron de Reidesel, of their own country. It would seem from the testimony of their descendants in Marysburgh, that the British Government employed the men from the Government of the principality, and that the men did not voluntarily enter the service, but were impressed. These Hessians were drilled before leaving their country. They were composed of infantry, artillery, and a rifle company, “Green Yongers.” They were embarked for Canada, by way of Portsmouth, and reached Quebec in time to join the British army, and meet the enemy at Stillwater. Conrad Bongard, of Marysburgh, informs us that his father was one of the company under General Reidesel. He was in the artillery, and accompanied Burgoyne in his eventful campaign; was at the battle of Tyconderoga; and, with the rest of the Hessian troops, was taken prisoner at Saratoga. They were taken down to Virginia, and there retained as prisoners of war for nearly two years. Being released on parole, many of them, with their General, were conveyed back to Germany; but some of them, having the alternative, preferred to remain in America, to share with the loyalists in grants of land. (See Marysburgh, where the Hessians settled). Conrad Bongard became the servant of Surveyor Holland, and was with him as he proceeded up the St. Lawrence, to survey. Bongard married a widow Carr, whose husband had been in the 24th regiment of Royal Fusileers, and had died while the prisoners were retained in Virginia. He eventually settled in the fifth township, where he died, January, 1840, aged 89. His wife, Susan, died February, 1846, aged 98. Both were members of the Lutheran church. Mrs. B. was a native of Philadelphia.

The wife of the General, Baroness de Reidesel, has left an interesting record of the battles prior to Burgoyne’s surrender.

CHAPTER VIII.