PACHESTE-L Archives

From: Mark & Jana Rooke <>
Subject: RE: Loyalist Document from NYGBS
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 07:58:52 -0800

Thank you all for the overwhelming response to the loyalist article. As
I stated before, we just happened across the article while doing an
index search of the NYGBS magazine THE RECORD for the name ROOKE. We did
not see the actual document. This was a gentleman, Benjamin Rand, that
reprinted the document for the magazine just as we did for the mail
lists. We don not know the where these people were from or with what
Loyalists regiments they were associated. If anyone can pinpoint where
these people were from it would be great. A couple of the query answers
below do some of that. Do you all think that all these people were in
New York (a British protected area) after losing all their land
elsewhere? Is that the reason they could get so many signatures?

I just find this all so fascinating and all you list participators so
knowledgable. Thank you again for all your time, effort and
considerations.
Jana Rooke
San Jose, CA
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/r/o/o/Mark--Jana--Rooke/index.html

I am going to post some of the responses we received since I posted the
document on several mail lists.

*****From
Thomas Carleton, Sir Guy Carleton's brother, was made Govenor of the new

province of New Brunswick so these may be some of the people who landed
on the
north side of the Bay of Fundy.

This counterpetition is mentioned in Ann Gorman Condon's book "The
Loyalist
Dream" -
"...The most notorious example of the jealousy that existed within the
refugee
ranks was the storm of protest that arose over the Petition of
55.....this petition
was drawn up by several well known Loyalist merchants,clergymen,and
lawyers in
the city, and requested that in recognition of their dignity and
sacrifices, they
should be granted the same allowance as field officers in Nova
Scotia-namely
5000 acres. This petition lit a fuse which continued to fire refugee
resentment
until long after they were settled in their new homes. The initial
reaction to it
was a counterpetition signed by 600 refugees who noted that they also
had 'been
deprived of very valuable landed estates and considerable personal
Propertys' as a
result of the war."

The Petition of 55 was titled "Petition of Sundry residents of New York
City,22
July 1783" and was signed by prominent and well educated people while
Ms Condon notes that one tenth of the signers of the counterpetition
used an X to
mark their names. Nancy
***********
I see my gr.gr.gr.gr.grandfather listed on page 185. You have hin listed
as
Will Plant. He left New York in 1783 for England only to return to
America, landing in Louisbourg, Cape Breton. He later settled in
Sydney,
Cape Breton.
Are you able to get a copy of this document ? If so. what would be the
cost ?
Carol MacLean in Vancouver, BC., Canada
**********
Do you have any idea where these LOYALISTS received their land?
Some of the names are familiar -- but I do not believe they came to Port

Roseway. During the last few years I have become more acquianted with
this part of my heritage.
I will check tomorrow and locate the regimental name and number, if any.

Muriel M. Davidson <>
**********
I will take a stabe at the date as being 1782.
William Plant on the list went from NY to England before coming to NS
J. Pell arrived in NS in 1783 as part of the Port Roseway Loyalist
group.

It seems that this might be a document stating these people were
remaining
Loyal to the British Crown and had been promised land in NS. Lark
*********
Mark & Jana: THANK YOU a million times! I've found what are most
likely
at least 3 of my ancestors on the document you re-typed. Now to track
them further with a renewed interest. Jeanne
*********

****From
Thanks for posting the list of petitioners who oppposed the "55". That
elite
group had held positions of power in the pre-revolutionary days and felt
the
Briish Government would look favorably upon their request to divide
Sunbury
County of Nova Scotia into feudal estates similar to those in England.
Because the majority of people who came here in 1783 were average
people,
mostly farmers and tradesmen, they wanted no part of slaving for an
absentee
landlord. In fact, one of the 55 had already laid out a tract of land in
the
parish of Dumfries that he called the Barony. It still goes by that
name
today.
Fortunately, the petitioners named in the document were successful and
all
land grants were held to around 200 acres rather than thousands in the
hands
of a few.
Nonetheless, the 55 obtained positions of power in the newly formed
province
of NB and left their mark through the government. Not much has changed
in
200+ years.
Bill Boone (Ship Union, April, 1783--or at least my ancestor)
***********
In a nutshell, it's quite simple. Those Loyalists were complaining to
the
Crown that although they had lost every bit as much as anyone else back
in
the rebelling American Colonies, they felt that some landgrabbers and
speculators had got to Nova Scotia before they did and had been favored
with disproportionately huge land grants. That was at least partially
true, but most of those large early land grants were eventually
escheated
(reverted to the Crown), broken up, and were regranted to other refugees
in
smaller parcels.
C B Knox
***********
**** From
The gist appears to be these petitioners are afraid that new assignments
of
land in Nova Scotia may pre-empt their own claims. Personally speaking,
the
Jas. Ketcham listed is one member of a Connecticut branch of Ketchams
who
removed to the safety of British held New York. As the war closed, they
were part of the great exodus to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Apart
from
the Ketcham listed, most of this clan chose to settle in New Brunswick.
regards,
Greg Ketcham
webmaster,
"Drums Along The Mohawk: the American Revolution on the New York
Frontier"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4171
*********
Thank you for putting the Loyalist document out for all to see. I
recognize
some names: Flewelling & Fowler are connected to my wife's lines as
well as
Harding.
I did not see some on my line which would include, McCowen (McKown) and
Parlee. I believe that this is a land grant request or redress.
Do you have any other records such as these?

Thanks,
Sincerely, Stephen G. Schweyen
*********
I recognize some of the names as of folks from Sussex/present-dayWarren
Counties, NJ whose lands were confiscated in 1778 by reason of having
defected to Tory side. At least one of these settled in New Brunswick. I

*speculate* that the land intended to be granted to such folks as
DeLancey's Rangers may have included land already settled, and that this

was the reason for the petition.
Judy

*****From PA-ROOTERS
Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Don't know how good it'll be. Someone else

will correct it, I'm sure. I'm going to number the paragraphs and take
them
one at a time:
Paragraph 1: We were loyal to the British in the American Revolution,
and
seeing we had no chance to go back to our land in the states, we had
decided
to move to Nova Scotia, and take advantage of the King's offer for all
Loyalists thrown out of the U.S.
2: We've heard that 55 people have jumped the gun, and asked the King
for
275,000 acres of land, and not only that, they have already sent a
forward
party to survey the land.
3: Even though we are really ticked at the way things seem to have
worked
out in the States, and even though we can't have our old land back, we
were
sure we would find protection under the Crown, little knowing these
sneaky
people would try to take more than their share of Nova Scotia.
4: We understand the Sneaky People lied to get the favors they got, and

kept it a secret, and now that it's too late to do anything, they are
boasting to the rest of us about what they've done. Not only that, but
we''ve noticed that these people, some of whom aren't even staying here,
but
returning to Britain, are the rich guys, and have been more
distinguished by
their favors from the government that from the fact that the suffered in
the
war, or served in any important capacity.
5: We can't help but notice that if these grants go through, the rest
of us
(not the Sneaky People) will have to either settle on land where we
can't
grow anything, or are 100 miles from anywhere, or we must be tenants and

rent land from these guys who are not better than us, just quicker and
sneakier.
6: (p. 181) We request from the King that some equity prevail here, and

that all of us be recompensed according to our losses and service in the

War, and if that is not done, and after an investigation, you determine
that
the Sneaky People got the land fair and square (which we doubt!), please

delay their occupying the land until we have a chance to carve out some
small piece on which to raise our families.
I don't mean to be flippant about this, but I didn't know any other way
to
keep the people straight in my own mind. Linda in Utah
***********
****From PHILLY-ROOTS
This is a protest by American loyalists (Tories) in Canada against
other
loyalists attempting to gain title to the best land allocated to the
loyalists by devious means.
They are demanding equal treatment for all loyalists.

There were Stackhouse loyalists but it seems that they weren't on this
petition. Eugene Stackhouse
********

This thread:

• RE: Loyalist Document from NYGBS by Mark & Jana Rooke <>