Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World

“Perhaps the most surprising truth about loyalist refugees was how varied a role ideology might play in their decision-making.” 

Loyalists had diverse motivations for leaving the new United States. Some were committed to the monarchy due to developed political philosophy, but others decided to remain British subjects based on personal allegiances or practical considerations. Black loyalists, for instance, chose the loyalist side because of Dunmore’s Proclamation of 1775, which promised freedom for enslaved people who fought for the British.

“A handful of studies have looked at specific figures and sites within this migration. But the loyalists’ worldwide dispersal has never been completely reconstructed.”

Jasanoff contextualizes her book within the broader body of historical research. While other investigations have dealt with topics she seeks to address, they have not presented a full picture of the loyalist diaspora, the aim of this book. This contextual frame characterizes both the author’s scholarly motivation and her work’s significance.

“This ‘spirit of 1783,’ so to speak, animated the British Empire well into the twentieth century—and provided a model of liberal constitutional empire that stood out as a vital alternative to the democratic republics taking shape in the United States, France, and Latin America.”

Playing with a common trope in American history that invokes the “spirit of 1776” to describe democratic revolutionary values, the author frames this book around what she calls the “spirit of 1783,” the values loyalist refugees spread throughout the British Empire. The loyalist diaspora transmitted Americans, and uniquely American values, into the British world, helping the empire expand but also sowing the seeds of future political upheavals.

“The closeness of the vote on Galloway’s plan poses an intriguing ‘what if’ for historians. What if one vote had gone the other way?” 

This line invites the reader to consider a hypothetical history. Joseph Galloway presented a plan to the First Continental Congress in 1774 that would allow the colonies to form an independent government to control domestic affairs, but still let Britain handle international relations. If the vote, which narrowly failed, had gone the other way, war may not have happened.

“A rich historical tradition has portrayed the American Revolution first and foremost as a war of ideals—not a war of ordeals.” 

This line contextualizes a rebuttal to the standard interpretation of the Revolutionary War as motivated by noble sentiments. Descriptions of ordinary people trying to adapt to the chaos of war and its aftermath bolster this contention throughout the book. This assertion follows a narrative of how an attack by a patriot mob inspired former noncombatant Georgia settler Thomas Brown to organize the King’s Rangers, a much-feared loyalist militia.

“As the primary manager of Britain’s evacuation from the United States, bore the brunt of responsibility for refugees and slaves under British protection.” 

This quote develops Guy Carleton as a key character in the loyalist exodus. As difficult as the situation was for all involved, its success rested on his decisions, clearly an enormous burden for one person. As a character, he highlights a developing theme of the British government’s failure to live up to hopeful expectations; even Carleton, who put sustained herculean effort toward the empire, grew disillusioned with Britain’s imperial enterprises.

“For many white loyalists in Savannah and Charleston, the choice of destination hinged on one overriding consideration to do with a very special kind of property, at once portable, valuable, and alive: slaves.”

Fleeing Southern colonies, enslaver loyalists had strong motivation to move to destinations within the British Empire, such as the Bahamas and Jamaica, where slavery was legal and culturally accepted. Logistically speaking, moving with their “property” to places where they could profit from the labor of enslaved subjects seemed a practical way to preserve family wealth. On a deeper level, European and American attachment to the institution of slavery, during this era especially, is a testament to those nations’ deep-seated beliefs in their own supremacy; despite humanist ideals emerging throughout the Enlightenment, and despite the “commitment to liberty and humanitarian ideals” of the “spirit of 1783” (12), these white loyalists often selectively applied that humanism. Such a disposition finds further expression in colonialist projects.

“Few of the thirty-five thousand or so loyalist civilians in New York City could have expected their lives would ever come down to a choice between emigration and endangerment.”

Jasanoff encourages readers to consider the perspectives of loyalists during the British evacuation of New York City. Ordinary people, loyalist civilians never thought they would ever leave their homes in fear of violence. The outcome of the war suddenly disrupted their lives.

“However peace turned out, Cruden could see some way for himself and his fellow loyalists to profit from it. His ideas would only grow more grandiose with time.” 

This insight develops John Cruden as a character. Jasanoff inserts this line to begin describing Cruden’s odd plan for a loyalist settlement within Spanish-held Florida and to foreshadow how Cruden continued to dream of eccentric political plots as his mental illness went untreated. The “grandiosity” to which Jasanoff refers is a common symptom of mania.

“I could have kissed the gravel on the salt Beach! It was my home: the Country which I had so long and so earnestly wished to see. The Isle of Liberty and Peace.” 

This quote from South Carolina loyalist Louisa Wells, describing landing in England in 1778, expresses loyalists’ overwhelming sense of relief when they reached Britain. The realities of life in Britain fell far short of the hopeful vision she expressed in that moment. Wells herself left Britain to settle in Jamaica.

“Low literally worried himself sick. On a visit to the Isle of Wight to recover his health, he died, crushed by loss.” 

New York loyalist Isaac Low was sorely disappointed by the compensation offered him by the Loyalist Claims Commission. His despondency over the loss of his fortune and the commission’s failure to provide adequate compensation for what he left behind exemplifies how the British government could not fulfill its promises to loyalists. Like Louisa Wells, Low found British realities to be at staggering odds with expectations.

“While the town erupted around him, David George stood his ground. From his freshly built pulpit he continued to preach, undaunted when the mob came in ‘and swore how they would treat me if I preached again.’” 

This passage, describing the 1784 race riot in Nova Scotia, develops David George as a character and allows readers to understand his point of view by quoting his own words. George was a formerly enslaved Virginian, and his Baptist faith was so strong that he refused to leave his new church despite the certainty of suffering violence at the hands of white loyalist rioters. 

“Armies in the streets, unlawful arrest, unfair taxation, unjust elections: the scene might as well have come straight out of the thirteen colonies on the eve of the revolution. So might the loyalists’ rhetoric.” 

Describing the popular civil unrest that erupted in 1785 New Brunswick when provincial authorities tried to limit popular power, Jasanoff compares loyalists to patriots. Though they left the United States, loyalist refugees held American attitudes towards imperial authority. This passage carries the text’s overarching theme of challenging loyalist stereotypes; refugees were, in fact, American at heart.

“As ever, Brant maneuvered in two guises: as Thayendanegea, ‘King of the Mohawks,’ he undertook ‘an embassy to the British court,’ while as Joseph Brant he deployed his Anglicized charm and connections to win favor.”

Describing Joseph Brant’s diplomatic trip to London as reported in the British press, Jasanoff uses Brant’s two names as a synecdoche for his bicultural identity. His political aptitude came from his ability to conduct diplomacy both as a Mohawk and as a British subject. Brant’s complex identity and the particularity of his character underscore the text’s larger theme of loyalist diversity. Refugees were anything but monolithic. 

“The only surviving portrait of him depicts a decidedly Byronic figure in a ruffled shirt, silver armbands cinching its billowing sleeves, thick coils of beads looped around his neck, and an elaborate ostrich-plumed turban.” 

This imagery and literary reference depicts William Augustus Bowles as a heroic, brooding figure in keeping with the characters in the famous poetry of George Byron, commonly known as Lord Byron (1788-1824). More specifically, the descriptor “Byronic” refers to the Byronic hero, a character type associated with the Romantic movement; Byronic heroes are famously tempestuous, aloof, and rebellious. Bowles cultivated his unusual style of dress to represent his identity as a Native leader for white audiences. A plate of the portrait appears in the book.

“This island was a morgue.” 

Metaphorically calling Jamaica a morgue, Jasanoff underscores the constant presence of death on the island. This statement contextualizes a discussion of the prevalence of tropical diseases in Jamaica. This pertains to the experiences of Elizabeth Johnston, whose physician husband found ample work on the island but whose children succumbed to disease.

“Though Parr had been instructed to give his support to Clarkson’s mission, he seemed more interested in ‘pushing about the Bottle, a favourite employ of his’ than encouraging the earnest young man.” 

John Clarkson, sent to Nova Scotia to recruit Black loyalists for a planned settlement in Sierra Leone, found Nova Scotian authorities unenthusiastic about the plan. Clarkson’s description of his meeting with Nova Scotian governor John Parr euphemistically reveals Parr’s likely alcohol addiction. The indifference Clarkson met in Nova Scotia later contrasted starkly with the enthusiasm he found among loyalists in Sierra Leone.

“Through all the disputes that divided them, the black loyalists—Peters excepted—had looked on Clarkson as an honest broker, and more: their Moses.” 

Aside from Thomas Peters, a Black loyalist with a history of decrying imperial authority, the settlers of Freetown in Sierra Leone considered Clarkson a good leader. The comparison of Clarkson with Moses plays upon what would have been a powerful metaphor for the Black loyalists, as Moses was a symbol of freedom and exodus from bondage. Moreover, the metaphor’s religious nature reflects the Christian character of the African settlement, and the chapter title is “Promised Land,” alluding to the same biblical narrative.

“When a rival craft drew up alongside his own, he saw the near miracle he needed. Collecting his wits and a small bundle of clothes, he slipped away onto the adjacent boat—and when that ship in turn sailed to Freetown, Bowles stepped back into the British Empire, a free man.”

This narrative represents Bowles’s improbable escape from French custody after his arrest and exile by Spanish authorities for plotting an independent Native settlement in Spanish-held Florida. One of the most unusual characters in the book, the way that Bowles escaped and returned to British territory was unlikely, almost miraculous in Jasanoff’s description.

“Britain had always wanted to preserve good relations with the United States, partly so as to prevent the republic from falling into a French orbit.” 

This line highlights a motivation of British government officials not often understood in the context of the Revolutionary War and its aftermath. Although the war pitted Britain against its patriot colonists, British officials still hoped to prevent English-speaking Americans from supporting France, Britain’s main European rival.

“By 1815 India was to the British Empire pretty much everything the North American and Caribbean colonies had been forty years earlier: the largest, most economically valuable, and strategically significant domain, and one of the most influential in turn on metropolitan politics and culture.”

Comparing the roles of Britain’s North American and Caribbean colonies and its newer subcontinental territory, Jasanoff argues that India overtook other colonies in significance to the British Empire by the end of the loyalist exodus. The empire changed in 40 years, and British attention turned to this new South Asian frontier. This quote also indirectly implies the relentless acquisitiveness of British colonialism; within a mere four decades, one desired “possession” or conquest eclipses another.

“West presents a flattering picture of the loyalists’ place in a resurgent empire.”

Jasanoff focuses on the painted image of the relationship between the British Empire and displaced loyalists in Benjamin West’s The Reception of the American Loyalists by Great Britain, reproduced in her book. West’s painting coveys the British government’s saintly and providential benevolence through golden light and even angelic figures in the clouds; this romanticized vision contrasts with the more nuanced reality described throughout the book. 

“In what turned out to be Dunmore’s final meeting with King George III, in 1803, the earl grew so enraged when the king denounced their joint grandchildren as ‘Bastards! Bastards!’ that it took all the self-control he could muster to refrain from assaulting his own sovereign.”

Narrating this final meeting between Dunmore and King George III, Jasanoff notes the irony of how Dunmore, one of the most influential imperial officials in the Revolutionary War and loyalist diaspora, personally fell out with the king he spent his career supporting. The book’s Conclusion emphasizes a heavy theme in the text: The British government, monarchs included, fell woefully short of many loyalists’ expectations.