Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Revlist] Re: Loyalty

Expand Messages
  • IVBNNJV@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/2/2004 12:14:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, Glenn@doublegv.com writes: Now Todd Braisted could tell you much more, but, Colonels Skinner and
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 1/2/2004 12:14:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      Glenn@... writes:
      Now Todd Braisted could tell you much more, but, Colonels Skinner and Von
      Buskirk of the British Provincial force the NJ Volunteers quit the 'protest'
      movement and went to the British side after the Declaration.
      Actually, General Skinner was inside the British lines and an ardent Loyalist
      before the declaration.

      Good examples of officers who quit the Continentals ostensibly over the
      Declaration of Independence would be Rudolphus Ritzema of the New York Line, John
      B. Scott of the New Jersey Line, and William Allen of the Pennsylvanians. All
      would become officers in the Provincial Corps.

      Todd W. Braisted
      4th Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers
      IVBNNJV@...
      www.royalprovincial.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • xxiipc@aol.com
      Lt. Col. William Allen of the First Battalion of Pennsylvania Loyalists was the commander of the Second Pennsylvania Regiment of the Continental Line. He
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Lt. Col. William Allen of the First Battalion of Pennsylvania Loyalists was
        the commander of the Second Pennsylvania Regiment of the Continental Line. He
        resigned his commission because the Congress didn't check with his family
        before declaring independence. His father was the chief justice of the Pennsylvania
        court. The family had contributed money to the state to build the state house
        (Independence Hall).

        An Old Campaigner
      • David Roberts
        As near as I can figure out my ancestor Thomas Conklin [1731-1811] of Huntington, L. I., fought for both sides during the Revolution. He was on the Patriot
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          As near as I can figure out my ancestor Thomas Conklin [1731-1811] of Huntington, L. I., fought for both sides during the Revolution. He was on the Patriot side at the beginning of the War and after the occupation of Long Island in 1776 ended up on the Loyalist side. I know he & some others from Huntington were captured and jailed in Hartford, Connecticut, by the Patriots for a period [early 1780's, I think]. But, he came home and lived the rest of his life in the Huntington area. I guess living in an occupied area, people's loyalties went w/ whomever was in power at the time.
          The really committed Loyalists from Long Island left for Nova Scotia or Upper Canada.
          I've lived in only two counties in my entire life and both were occupied by "enemy" forces during each of the major wars on U. S. soil: Suffolk County, L. I., N. Y. - a Patriot county occupied by the British 1776-1783 and St. Mary's County, Md. - a Confederate County occupied by the Union 1861-1865. It's interesting to study local history in both areas and learn about civilian life during an occupation by the "enemy." Actually, I think the Union's occupation of St. Mary's was far worse for the assault on political and civil liberties - especially jail w/out trials or any formal charges; for property damage, the British occupation of Suffolk County was pretty bad, especially property owned by Presbyterian or other Calvinist church congregations. The Union seemed to leave church property alone, other than the slaves owned by the Jesuits on the Order's huge plantations in St. Mary's. The Jesuit priests were among the largest slave holders in the county. This certainly wasn't the case in the Revolution, when the British went out with a vengence against Presbyterian property.
          Anyway, it's an interesting topic: "What was in like to live behind Enemy Lines ?" I guess there's somebody's master's thesis for them !
          Take care, everybody, and have a great 2004
          David

          David Roberts
          Hollywood, MD
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: IVBNNJV@...
          To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 12:21 PM
          Subject: Re: [Revlist] Re: Loyalty


          In a message dated 1/2/2004 12:14:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          Glenn@... writes:
          Now Todd Braisted could tell you much more, but, Colonels Skinner and Von
          Buskirk of the British Provincial force the NJ Volunteers quit the 'protest'
          movement and went to the British side after the Declaration.
          Actually, General Skinner was inside the British lines and an ardent Loyalist
          before the declaration.

          Good examples of officers who quit the Continentals ostensibly over the
          Declaration of Independence would be Rudolphus Ritzema of the New York Line, John
          B. Scott of the New Jersey Line, and William Allen of the Pennsylvanians. All
          would become officers in the Provincial Corps.

          Todd W. Braisted
          4th Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers
          IVBNNJV@...
          www.royalprovincial.com





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Joyce & Mike Barbieri
          ... fiction ... as ... Brendan, While reading some of The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, I came across a letter from John
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "gstk1776" <gstk1776@y...> wrote:
            > The term "Ministerial Army" was used widely on the outbreak of
            > hostilities in 1775 to describe British soldiers. This was a
            fiction
            > designed to show that the Colonists regarded the King's ministers
            as
            > the authors of their distress, and presumably was also designed to
            > deflect the treasonable aspect of firing on the "King's men". When
            > did people cease using this term and how widespread was it (most of
            > the references I've seen are from New England)?


            Brendan,

            While reading some of "The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of
            the United States," I came across a letter from John Adams to the
            Pres. of Congress dated Dec. 8, 1778, in which he says;

            "It has been usual to consider this as a ministerial war, but I have
            ever thought they would some time or other discover it to be a
            national war. The few men of the nation who think seriously of the
            business see clearly, in the long train of consequences of American
            independence, the loss of their West India islands, a great part of
            their East India trade, the total loss of Canada, Nova Scotia, the
            Floridas, all the American fisheries, a diminution of their naval
            power, as well as national bankruptcy and a revolution in their
            government in favor of arbitrary power. And the nation in general has
            a confused dread upon its spirits of all these things."

            It hints that some (maybe the New Englanders you mention) still used
            the term "ministerial" in talking about the war.

            Mike Barbieri
            Whitcomb's Corps--the original unit being all good New Englanders
          • IVBNNJV@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/3/2004 9:39:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, droberts@olg.com writes: As near as I can figure out my ancestor Thomas Conklin [1731-1811] of
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 1/3/2004 9:39:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              droberts@... writes:
              As near as I can figure out my ancestor Thomas Conklin [1731-1811] of
              Huntington, L. I., fought for both sides during the Revolution. He was on the Patriot
              side at the beginning of the War and after the occupation of Long Island in
              1776 ended up on the Loyalist side.
              Hi David

              There are at least four references to Thomas Conklins serving in Loyalist
              corps during the war. There were at least two men, Thomas Conklin, Senior &
              Thomas Conklin, Junior, both from Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island.

              Both of the above are listed as taking the oath of allegiance to the British
              when Governor Tryon made his tour of the island in 1778. Senior was listed as
              a farmer, fifty years old; Junior as a weaver, 24 years old. Both from
              Huntington. Source: Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, Class 5,
              Volume 1109, Pages 2-49.

              Both are listed as serving in the Suffolk County Militia (Loyalist.) There
              were four companies I believe from Huntington. Source: Huntington Town
              Historian, Huntington Town Records, Volume III, Page 26.

              Two Thomas Conklins later pop up in Loyalist corps. Could be the same
              people, or two different ones. I'd say at least one is one of the above, given
              where he served, viz.

              A Thomas Conklin served in the Associated Loyalists at Lloyd's Neck, which is
              right next door to Huntington. The Associators were disbanded in late 1782,
              and a number volunteered for service in the Armed Boat Company, where he
              became a private on 12 October 1782. He was involved in a naval engagement in Long
              Island Sound on 7 December 1782 and killed. Source: National Archives
              Canada, Chipman Papers, MG 23, D1, Series I, Volume 27, Pages 368-371. The
              incident is described in length in a letter from Benjamin Tallmadge to George
              Washington, dated 8 December 1782 in the George Washington Papers. The roll lists
              only five men killed and 1 officer & 9 men captured, so it differs from what
              Tallmadge claimed.

              The other Thomas Conkin reference shows one enlisting on 9 May 1782 in the
              Loyal American Regiment. The regiment was at Gowanus, Brooklyn at the time, so
              they were on the island. He deserted 24 June 1783. Source: National Archives
              Canada, RG 8, "C" Series, Volume 1869, Page 52 & Volume 1870, Page 33.

              There were over two dozen Conklins as Loyalists during the war, the vast
              majority from Long Island. We have many documents about the corps listed above on
              our website, which I invite you to peruse.

              YMH&OS,

              Todd W. Braisted
              4th Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers
              IVBNNJV@...
              www.royalprovincial.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jay Callaham
              ... From: David Roberts To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [Revlist] Re: Loyalty ...
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "David Roberts" <droberts@...>
                To: <Revlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:55 AM
                Subject: Re: [Revlist] Re: Loyalty


                > As near as I can figure out my ancestor Thomas Conklin [1731-1811] of
                Huntington, L. I., fought for both sides during the Revolution. He was on
                the Patriot side at the beginning of the War and after the occupation of
                Long Island in 1776 ended up on the Loyalist side. I know he & some others
                from Huntington were captured and jailed in Hartford, Connecticut, by the
                Patriots for a period [early 1780's, I think]. But, he came home and lived
                the rest of his life in the Huntington area. I guess living in an occupied
                area, people's loyalties went w/ whomever was in power at the time.

                <snip>

                It was like that all over, in the South as well. That's one reason that I
                cannot condemn Benedict Arnold as fiercely as some others can. MANY people
                changed sides. Granted that he had a position that allowed him to
                potentially inflict great harm, but he didn't do anything that wasn't done
                by a lot of other people. When balanced against the good that he did, I can
                cut his memory some slack. And given the serious treasonous of people like
                James Wilkinson, Gen. Twiggs and others - he's a piker!

                Cheers!

                Jay
                Cm Gds
                4th Coy, Bde of Guards
              • bdodgeweaver
                ... recently, and they have resurrected some questions that have long puzzled me . . . I have read here and there that some officers and men of the Continental
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "gstk1776" <gstk1776@y...> wrote:
                  > Dear List, There have been several threads on betrayal and loyalty
                  recently, and they have resurrected some questions that have long
                  puzzled me . . . I have read here and there that some officers and
                  men of the Continental Army (and presumably some militia personnel,
                  too) were unhappy at the Declaration of Independence and left the
                  service of Congress in protest, as this was not what they were
                  fighting for - I imagine most simply "retired" but a few must have
                  become Loyalists. Does anyone know what sort of numbers were
                  involved and whether any of the leavers later became famous? Brendan
                  Morrissey
                  _____________

                  Dear Brendan: Happy New Year! While others may differ from my view,
                  the one individual who comes to my mind as unwilling to accept the
                  escalation from protest to armed struggle was Joseph Galloway, the
                  influential Pennsylvania politician and member of the First
                  Continental Congress who ended up siding with the Crown. As a number
                  of the members of this list are aware, Galloway was a close friend of
                  Dr. Franklin and a born American. John Dickinson may be closer to
                  what you are considering, a member of the Second Continental Congress
                  who refused to vote for Independence.

                  Of course, your question was directed to the Army. One candidate for
                  a Continental Officer who left the Army in protest - or for chief
                  hypocrite - was Nicholas Haussegger, the first Colonel commanding
                  the German Regiment (also known as the German Battalion). He seems
                  to have been a competent soldier, serving as a sergeant in the
                  Regiment of Struler in 1756 (a Swiss regiment in the Netherlands
                  service), then in the Royal American Regiment (1756-1760) and as a
                  Lieutenant and Captain in the Pennsylvania Regiment (1760-c.1764).
                  Following the start of the AWI he accepted a commission as Major in
                  the 4th Pa. Batt. under Anthony Wayne. He was commissioned Colonel
                  of the German Regiment in July 1776, and reported to take command of
                  the unit in Philadelphia in October 1776.

                  His February 1, 1781 resignation letter may be found at the on-line
                  Washington papers maintained by the Library of Congress, and notes in
                  part that "The principles of the present contest have been so totally
                  changed from what they were when I first accepted a Commission under
                  your command and myself so much neglected and injuriously treated by
                  those in whose service I was that I can not consistant with the
                  honest man and in justice to myself hold it any longer."

                  Haussegger's description of himself as "honest" is something of a
                  stretch. He was "captured" under very suspicious circumstances on
                  January 1 or January 2, 1777 as part of the delaying force of
                  Washington's Army prior to the cannonade at the Assunpink Bridge
                  during the Second Battle of Trenton, and had accepted his Colonel's
                  commission after, not before, the Declaration of Independence. While
                  awaiting parole in New York City in early 1777 he urged other
                  captured Continental officers to abandon the cause of Independence,
                  and he is mentioned as a sort of spy in secret correspondence between
                  Arnold and Andre in 1779. The best account I have seen of
                  Haussegger is James F. Davis (Thomas V. Uhrich, ed.), "A Man of No
                  Country: the Case of Colonel Nicholas Haussegger 1729-1786" Vol.
                  XVII, No. 3, Lebanon County Historical Society, Lebabon, PA (1989).

                  Thad Weaver
                  German Regiment
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.