Unnatural Rebellion: Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution by Ruma Chopra

Abstract

122 Book Reviews Unnatural Rebellion: Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution. By Ruma Chopra. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2011, 320 pages, $35.00 Cloth. Reviewed by Luke J. Feder, The College of New Rochelle In Unnatural Rebellion: Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution, historian Ruma Chopra contends that scholars of the American Revolution too often ignore or minimize the loyalist perspective and regard American independence from the British Empire as inevitable. She asserts that historians “have discounted the substantive threat of loyalist persuasions to revolutionary ideals” (5). The loyalist plea for reconciliation with the empire alarmed revolutionaries and resonated with many provincial Americans who desired to preserve the political, cultural, and economic connections with the metropole. Rather than viewing loyalism as an “extraordinary” or “pragmatic” choice like past historians have done, she posits that loyalism in New York City had “the potential to build a competing solidarity” (5). In order to illuminate this standpoint, Chopra relies most heavily on newspapers, broadsides, almanacs, personal papers, letters, and memoirs for her primary sources. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, New Yorkers— future revolutionaries and loyalists alike—criticized and protested the British Parliament’s endeavors to tax and exert power over the provinces in mainland North America. Residents proudly identified themselves as citizens of the British Empire and as beneficiaries of the British constitution and commerce. Parliament’s passage of the Coercive Acts in 1774 and the military skirmishes at Lexington and Concord in 1775, however, divided the city’s inhabitants. Nascent revolutionaries shifted from resisting Parliament’s policies to advocating open rebellion against the empire. Book Reviews 123 Loyalists, especially those who were more moderate, insisted on the repeal of the Coercive Acts and the redressing of other political grievances, but they remained ideologically bound to the empire and its political and legal control. They believed that mob rule and its disregard for authority posed a greater threat than unfair tax policies. Therefore, as revolutionaries assumed control of the city, many loyalists increasingly perceived events as an “unnatural rebellion” (1). Loyalists deployed the term to condemn the revolutionaries’ excessive and illegal tactics and to articulate their dread that the rebellion would irreversibly harm the British Empire and leave in its place a Hobbesian state of nature. Much of Chopra’s monograph details the relationship between New York loyalists and British authorities. When British troops entered the city in October 1776, loyalists expected a prompt return to civil government based on the principles of the British constitution. General William Howe, the commander in chief of the British army, instead placed the city under martial law to deal with security issues, an influx of refugees, and the close proximity of revolutionary forces. Like their rebel counterparts, British soldiers treated loyalist residents poorly by violating their rights, stealing their property, and harming their persons. Loyalists petitioned for the reinstatement of civil law, but Howe’s wartime concerns outweighed loyalists’ constitutional rights. In addition to living under martial law for the duration of the war, loyalists found their endeavors to serve as soldiers unwanted. British officers regarded them as social inferiors and wished to avoid allocating limited resources on untrained and unproven regiments. Therefore, loyalist troops—including escaped slaves who received amnesty—frequently served only in supportive roles. Although the British did not have confidence in loyalists’ military prowess, some loyalists did find success aiding the war effort as merchants and privateers. Chopra also explores the divisions and disunity between those loyalists she refers to as “moderates” and “hard-liners.” Moderates had concerns with Parliament’s policies, but believed that any grievances must be resolved through constitutional means. Their veneration of the British constitution caused them to be the staunchest advocates for the resumption of civil government. They held out hope for reconciliation, but wanted the revolutionaries, as loyalist Peter Van Schaack noted, to negotiate “some middle way” between self-determination for the provinces and total capitu- 124 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY lation to the empire (58). Moderates also viewed a heavy-handed military strategy against the rebels as incompatible with reconciliation. Hard-liners contended, however, that measures such as reconciliation or pardons made the empire appear...