The Legend of Captain Michael Grass:
The Logic of Elimination and Loyalist Mythmaking in Upper Canada, 1783-1869
By
Avery J. N. Esford
Cognate Essay Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Degree Master’s of Arts in the Department of History
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Final (QSpace) Submission August, 2021
Copyright © Avery Esford, 2021
Contents
Introduction 1
I. Michael Grass: A Brief Overview of the Loyalist in Question 4
II. A Family Tradition: Constructing the Legend of Captain Michael Grass 11
III. “Scarce the Vestige of Human Habitation”: Cataraqui Before the Loyalists 19
IV. “He Assumes to Himself the Title of Proprietor”: Michael Grass Arrives 28
Conclusion 41
Bibliography 44
Introduction
The primary motive for elimination is not race (or religion, ethnicity, grade of civilization, etc.) but access to territory. Territoriality is settler colonialism’s specific, irreducible element.1 -Patrick Wolfe
On a sunny morning in May 2002, a group of volunteers gathered around a gravesite located at Cataraqui Cemetery in Kingston, Ontario, which belonged to the celebrated United
Empire Loyalist Michael Grass. The volunteers were members of the Michael Grass Stone
Committee, a group formed three years earlier to preserve the grave marker of the notable Loyalist.
Commonly referred to as “Captain Michael Grass” the gravesite marked the final resting place of the leader of eight Companies of Associated Loyalists2 who travelled from New York City to
Cataraqui in 1784. Since then, Michael Grass has widely been considered the “founder” of
Kingston for leading the expedition of refugees. The gathering featured an unveiling ceremony which marked the culmination of three years of research and restoration work by the committee.
The new grave marker, as seen in Figure 1, bears the inscription “Michal Grass, Died April
25, 1813, Aged 78” above the remounted stone and “Capt Michael Grass” below, somewhat remedying the accidental misspelling of “Michal” that appears above. On the back of the new gravestone the committee attached a bronze plaque engraved with the following passage, “During the spring of 1784, Michael led fifty Loyalist families to Cataraqui establishing a permanent settlement from which has grown the City of Kingston.” The unveiling ceremony was the latest chapter in a long tradition that celebrates Michael Grass as the founder of Kingston, Ontario.
1 Patrick Wolfe, “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 388. 2 The term “Associated Loyalist” was used by a number of Loyalists military organisations during the American Revolution (1775-1783). Loyalists became associated as a means of organising the thousands of refugees pouring into cities like New York. The designation of Associated Loyalist was also meant to give the refugees a legitimate status to help them deal with American authorities in search of compensation or their losses in the war.
Figure 1: Michael Grass’s Gravesite, 2021: Located in the Heritage Section of Cataraqui Cemetery, Kingston, Ontario, the gravesite features the original headstone remounted on a new granite block (left) as well as a bronze plaque mounted to the rear (right). Source: Photographs by the author.
There are other monuments dedicated to Michael Grass scattered about the Cataraqui region which credit the Loyalist in question with being the founder of the town in 1784. One such monument was erected in 1993 by the Kingston and District Branch of the United Empire
Loyalists’ Association of Canada3 with the assistance of the Ontario Heritage Foundation.4 This plaque proudly states, “This is the burial place of Captain Michael Grass and United Empire
Loyalist families he brought to Cataraqui in 1784” and continues, “Those who came and will come in search of freedom and a better life are very much in their [the Loyalists] debt. All people of
Ontario have benefitted from this legacy.”
3 The Kingston and District Branch of the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada is a volunteer-run historical organisation dedicated to the preservation of United Empire Loyalist history. The Kingston branch is one of twenty-seven branches across Canada that preserves and promotes Ontario’s Loyalist past. 4 The Ontario Heritage Foundation has since been renamed the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) and is a non-profit agency of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture. The OHT is responsible for protecting, preserving, and promoting the cultural heritage of Ontario. Since 2005, the OHT has erected over 1,200 blue and gold plaques dedicated to regional cultural heritage across the province like one dedicated to Michael Grass in Kingston.
A third plaque is located in downtown Kingston which was also erected by the Ontario
Heritage Foundation. This plaque states, “In June 1784 a party of Associated Loyalists from New
York State under the command of Captain Michael Grass, part of a loyalist flotilla travelling from
Montreal, established a camp here on Mississauga Point” before continuing, “Grass later recalled:
‘I led the loyal band, I pointed out to them the site of their future metropolis and gained for persecuted principles a sanctuary, for myself and followers a home.’” Together, the monuments that are scattered throughout the Kingston’s colonial commemorative landscape are physical testimonies to what I call the “Legend of Captain Michael Grass.”
Historian Norman Knowles asserts that “Monuments are rarely sought to commemorate an objective past, however; they celebrate a version of the past that reflected the values, attitudes, and objectives of their promoters.”5 In this light, the monuments erected by various Ontario historical organisations promote a specific version of the past that places an emphasis on Michael Grass as the person who laid the foundation of Kingston in 1784. The Legend of Captain Michael Grass, however, is an example of what historian Cecilia Morgan has called a “settler society fiction.”
Settler society fictions are particular narratives of the establishment of Upper Canada where the
“pioneer past” prevails almost entirely free of “bothersome Aboriginals.”6
The Legend of Captain Michael Grass is comprised of three main claims. It asserts; first, that the region of Cataraqui was a barren wilderness that was left uninhabited and therefore ripe for settlement in the 1780s; second, that the idea to settle refugee Loyalists at Cataraqui originated with Michael Grass; and third, that Grass was the foremost leader in the creation of the new settlement and significantly influenced the development of the community. These three basic
5 Norman Knowles, Inventing the Loyalists: The Ontario Loyalist Tradition & the Creation of Usable Pasts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 115. 6 Cecilia Morgan, Creating Pasts: History, Memory, and Commemoration in Southern Ontario, 1860-1980 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 7.
assertions depend upon a selective and distorted memory of the Loyalist migration to Cataraqui in
1784 that places a special emphasis on the role played by Michael Grass.
This essay argues that the Legend of Captain Michael Grass is based in a settler society fiction of the “founding” of Kingston in 1784. According to the legend, the hardy Loyalists were led by Grass into an uninhabited wilderness and built a sanctuary that upheld British institutions and values. This problematic interpretation of the migration lacks any consideration for the colonial authorities who facilitated the journey, and, more importantly, it completely erased the local Indigenous Mississauga from their ancestral lands. The displacement of the Mississauga was initiated with the sudden influx of white settlers into the region, and their presence at Cataraqui was even removed from the legend itself.7 The legend contains many fictionalised elements that ignore the complex legacy of Euro-Indigenous contact on the north shore of Lake Ontario in the late eighteenth century.
The settler society fiction of the Legend of Captain Michael Grass is part of what Australian historian Patrick Wolfe has called “the logic of elimination.” The logic of elimination is the organising principle of settler colonialism, an ongoing system of power which perpetuates the repression of Indigenous peoples, that strives for the liquidation of native societies and the establishment of colonial society on the expropriated land base.8 Applied to the Canadian context, historian Allan Greer has argued that the logic of elimination is found within the British tradition of treaty making with Indigenous peoples who surrendered vast tracts of land to the colonial authorities. Greer argues that treaties were “an instrument of unusually thoroughgoing
7 Donald B. Smith, “The Dispossession of the Mississauga Indians: A Missing Chapter in the Early History of Upper Canada,” in Historical Essays on Upper Canada: New Perspectives, ed. J.K. Johnson and Bruce G. Wilson (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989), 23. 8 Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event (New York: Cassell, 1999), 27.
dispossession” which is made evident when examining the British acquisition of Cataraqui from the Mississauga through the Crawford Purchase (1783-4).9 The treaty extinguished the Indigenous title over the land and pushed the local Mississauga aside making room for the newly arrived
Loyalists. The Legend of Captain Michael Grass is the logic of elimination at work. This founding myth is itself an instrument of dispossession that cleaves the Indigenous peoples from their ancestral land in order to justify the project of settler colonialism at Cataraqui. The Legend of
Captain Michael Grass accounts for the sudden presence of white settlers at Cataraqui, legitimised the dispossession of the Mississauga from the north shore of Lake Ontario, and perpetuates the settler society fiction of the “founding” of Kingston by Michael Grass in 1784.
I. Michael Grass: A Brief Overview of the Loyalist in Question
To denaturalise the Legend of Captain Michael Grass, we must first establish what we do know about the historical figure based on archival evidence. The aim of this section is to briefly survey the early life of Michael Grass from 1735 to 1783, in order to establish an understanding of the Loyalist that is rooted in historical analysis rather than myth.
Michael Grass was born “Johann Michael Gress” on 11 February 1735 in Roppenheim,
Alsace, France, to parents Johann Michael Gress, Sr., and Anna Maria Kramer.10 Michael Grass was a French subject of Louis XV upon his birth, but the family was ethnically German like many of those in the Roppenheim region. The “Gress” family was Lutheran, and Michael grew up with five male siblings, one having died at a young age.11 Although Michael and his siblings were
9 Allan Greer, “Settler Colonialism and Empire in Early America,” William and Mary Quarterly 76, no. 3 (July 2019): 387. 10 Roppenheim – Parish Register (Before 1793) – Protestant Parish (Before 1793) – Baptism registers 1688-1746 – 3 E 409/1. 101. Departmental Council of Bas-Rhin. 11 Ibid, 85, 93, 101, 104, 121 & 140.
French subjects, they were most certainly linguistically and culturally German. What is significant about Roppenheim at the time of Michael’s childhood is that the territory had many of the characteristics of a borderland region, a place of complex cultural interactions between the French and German inhabitants. French officials projected the authority of King Louis XV over the
German population, leading to popular resentment directed towards the French authorities by the inhabitants of Roppenheim.
The French-German tensions caused a great number of families to flee the region during the early-eighteenth century, including Grass’s family. Michael appeared to have set out on the well-worn migratory path of the Palatine Migration (1709). The Palatines, emigrants from the
Rhine region, had established a pattern of migration that would see tens of thousands of German immigrants cross the Atlantic Ocean and settle in the Thirteen Colonies.12 Pennsylvania was the most popular destination for German immigrants because the colonial authorities ensured that they could both purchase land and participate in trade and commerce upon their arrival.13 Immigrants were also immediately naturalised as British subjects upon landing in Pennsylvania. These were significant privileges that were not often extended to immigrants in other colonies which enticed thousands to migrate to Pennsylvania by the 1750s.
Previous Grass family researchers located Michael aboard the ship Two Brothers which arrived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 24 August 1750. The passenger list of Two Brothers contains the names “Johan Nickle Gans” and “Johan George Gans” which have been understood to be Johann Michael Gress and his brother Johann George Gress, despite the dissimilarities
12 Philip Otterness, “The 1709 Palatine Migration and the Formation of German Immigrant Identity in London and New York,” Pennsylvania History 66, (1999): 8. 13 Walter Allan Kittle, Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration: A British Government Redemptioner Project to Manufacture Naval Stores (Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company, 1937), 28.
between the pair of names.14 It is plausible that Michael did indeed arrive on Two Brothers in 1750.
However, there remains more compelling evidence that he arrived in Philadelphia in 1752 aboard the ship Halifax. On 22 September 1752, the ship Halifax arrived in the harbour of Philadelphia after departing from Cowes, England some six weeks earlier. The passenger list for Halifax records the arrival of three young men by the names of “Michael Grass”, “Jacob Grass”, and “Ludwig
Grass.”15 The names bear a much closer resemblance to the names Johann Michael Gress, George
Jacob Gress, and Johann Ludwig Gress.
Upon arriving in Philadelphia, Michael Grass would have been required to swear an oath of fidelity to the British sovereign King George II and an oath of abjuration towards his French monarch King Louis XV.16 The oath of allegiance forced newly arrived immigrants to acknowledge their debt to King George II for sponsoring their journey and to promise to obey the accustom laws of the colony. The oaths of fidelity and abjuration appear to have had a profound impact on Michael Grass because he was faced with the choice of supporting the British or their enemies on two occasions. The first instance was allegedly during the Seven Years’ War (1756-
1763) and the second was during the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). In both cases,
Grass sided with the British revealing either a strong sense of allegiance to his new sovereign or a keen awareness of which side was more advantageous for him at the time.
Michael Grass disappears from the historical record for the next eight years after arriving in Philadelphia in 1752. During the intervening period, Grass made his way from Philadelphia to
New York City which was another popular destination for German immigrants. According to the marriage records of the New York City Lutheran Church, Michael Grass was married to Anna
14 Ralph Beaver Strassburger, Pennsylvania German Pioneers, A Publication of the Original Lists of Arrivals in the Port of Philadelphia from 1727 to 1808 (Binghamton: Vail-Ballou Press, 1934), 436. 15 Strassburger, Pennsylvania German Pioneers, 491. 16 Kittle, Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration, 28.
Margaretha Schwartz on 20 July 1760.17 Michael is recorded on the marriage record as “J. Michael
Gress” an anglicised version of the more Germanic-sounding Johann Michael Gress. Michael and
Anna Margaretha would go on to have four children together between 1761 and 1770, during which time Grass supported his young family as a harness maker while residing in New York City.
Michael Grass and his wife Anna Margaretha occupied a home in Queens, New York until
1772 when they decided to move their young family to the northeastern reaches of the province.
The Province of New York was home to thousands of German immigrants who had sought the safety and prosperity of the region since the 1730s. One of the most popular destinations for prospective settlers was the Mohawk Valley, a region characterised by close Euro-Indigenous interaction between the German settlers and the most eastern group of the Haudenosaunee
Confederacy, the Mohawk.18
Michael Grass and his young family set out to establish their own farm in the Mohawk
Valley in 1772, when Michael purchase 125 acres of arable land from another German settler named Hendrich Diefendorf. The land registry of Tryon County, New York, records that Grass and Diefendorf finalised the purchase over two days on 29 and 30 December 1772.19 It was this farm, the 125 acres located along Bowmans Creek in Canajoharie, that the rebel patriots sequestered from the Grass family during the onset of the American Revolutionary War in 1775.
After the war, Michael reported that he had lost possession of the 125 acre farm to the Loyalist
Claims Commission, the body of British authorities responsible for reimbursing Loyalists losses from the war.20 What has remained hidden, however, was that some years later a bill of sale was
17 New York City Lutheran Church, “Vital Records Index: Individual Records: Michael Grass, Anna Margaretha Schwartz.” July 20, 1760. 18 Knittle, Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration, 204-205. 19 Larry Turner, Voyage of a Different Kind: The Associated Loyalists of Kingston and Adolphustown (Belleville: Mika Publishing, 1984), 36. 20 Michael Grass, “The Claim of Captain Michael Grass Against the American Government,” PACMG 14 AO 13, Claims, American Loyalists, Series II, Vol. 13, p. 118.
created in Canajoharie on 22 September 1792, stating that, “Michael Grass of Kingston, Frontenac
County, Upper Canada sold to Adolph Walradt of Bowman’s Kill in Canajoharie Township a tract of land… …containing 125 acres of land.” Michael Grass had been reimbursed by the British authorities for his losses in the war, but suspiciously sold the very same property in 1792.
By purchasing the land from Diefendorf in 1772, Michael Grass secured a home for his young family, which would grow to include three more children between 1771 and 1776. This evidence suggests that Michael intended on setting down permanent roots for his family in the
Mohawk Valley. The Mohawk Valley was a borderland region which shared many similarities with Grass’s childhood home in Alsace, France.21 Having grown up in a region where German and
French political, economic, and social systems met, Grass would have been well accustom to the cultural complexity of the Mohawk Valley in the 1770s with its Dutch, French, German,
Haudenosaunee, Irish, and Scottish influences. Michael’s presence in the local militia also suggests permanency and the desire to integrate into the community. Grass had been appointed as a Captain of the Second Company of the First Regiment of the Tryon County Militia, which was comprised of fellow men from Canajoharie. Despite the efforts of the Grass family to successfully integrate into the community, their plans for a peaceful agricultural existence in the Mohawk Valley were soon undone by the events of the American Revolution.
According to historian James Paxton, the eve of the Revolution marked, “the days in which the people of New York’s new Tryon County were sorting themselves out and taking sides.”22
Grass was faced with an important decision at the start of the Revolutionary War: he could honour his oath of fidelity sworn to the British in 1752 or he could defy his promise and join the rebel
21 Otterness, “The 1709 Palatine Migration,” 19-20. 22 James Paxton, Joseph Brant and His World: Eighteenth-Century Statesman and Warrior (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1984), 145.
forces. As tensions came to a fever pitch, Grass decided to honour his oath and sided with the
Loyalists. Michael fled Canajoharie in 1777, only five years after having moved his family there in search of a new home. Having left Canajoharie, Grass journeyed to the Loyalist safe haven of
New York City, leaving his wife and children behind at the family farm to face the Tryon County
Committee of Safety.
Based on an analysis of Grass’s report made before the Loyalist Claims Commission around 1788, it is evident that his sudden departure to New York City left the family unable to defend their farm from the Tryon County Committee of Safety. The Patriots sequestered a dwelling house, barn, furniture, chests, a wagon, tools, livestock, and crops, forcing the family into poverty.23 According to the commission records, the total damages inflicted upon the Grass family was generously estimated to be £1,777.12 in monetary compensation.24 The record of Michael’s testimony also reveals that the Grass family lost, “A House Built in New York On Rebel Property
By Authority of the Mayor Of the City.”25 Michael had been given permission by the Mayor of
New York City, David Mathews, to build a house along Chatham Street on the property of a Patriot who had forfeit their land in much of the same fashion as Grass had done in Canajoharie.26 By
1783, it was clear that the British had been defeated and were now faced with the evacuation of thousands of Loyalists from New York City, including the Grass family.
It is during the Loyalist exodus from New York City in 1783 that the narrative of Michael
Grass, once rooted in archival evidence, begins to give way to the legend. Michael’s involvement in the evacuation has become the subject of mythologization and bestows the Loyalist in question
23 Michael Grass, “The Claim of Captain Michael Grass Against the American Government,” PACMG 14 AO 13, Claims, American Loyalists, Series II, Vol. 13, p. 118. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Michael Grass, “Those Loyalists,” Royal American Gazette, May 26, 1783.
with an increased level of importance. The following section moves away from an understanding of Michael based in archival evidence and examines the Legend of Captain Michael Grass which is rooted in myth. There is no monolithic account of the legend, but instead there are a several narratives that each contain subtle differences from the last. The slight variations of the narrative do not change the overall meaning of the story, but they do reveal that the legend contains a considerable amount of subjectivity that is often found in the mythologization of the past. The examination of the legend will be based on the testimonies of Grass himself and two of his direct descendants. Together, the family stories are the foundation of the Legend of Captain Michael
Grass and represent the most complete account of the “founding” of Kingston in 1784 which places an emphasis on the role played by Michael.
II. A Family Tradition: Constructing the Legend of Captain Michael Grass
Having established the facts of Grass’s early life based on archival evidence, I now turn to a discussion of the process of mythologization which involved the Grass family who created Upper
Canadian legend. Grass and his direct descendants consciously created an account of the Loyalist migration which presented Michael as the principal actor in the establishment of the settlement.
The legend was crafted through oral retellings by Grass’s descendants over the course of three generations in the early nineteenth century. According to historian Jane Errington, Upper Canadian society at this time was “largely oral” as communities depended on “face-to-face” communication in their everyday lives.27 The Legend of Captain Michael Grass was retold by three generations of the Grass family and has functioned as the traditional founding narrative for the community.28
27 Jane Errington, The Lion, Eagles, and Upper Canada: A Developing Colonial Ideology (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2012), 15. 28 The typical understanding of Michael Grass is reflected in the following passage gleaned from Pioneer Life on the Bay of Quinte, “Truly it may be said that Captain Michael Grass was the founder of Kingston; the first citizen in the
This section examines the three most significant contributors to the Legend of Captain
Michael Grass between 1811-1869. The legend originated with Michael Grass himself in 1811, was added to by his son John around 1849, and had solidified by the time his grandson, Robert
Grass, told the story in 1869. The three Grass men significantly contributed to the aggrandisement of the myth of Michael by injecting the narrative with increased fictious qualities with each new generation. All accounted for, these three narratives form the foundation of the Legend of Captain
Michael Grass. The myths surrounding Michael became a key component in perpetuating the settler society fiction of the “founding” of Cataraqui in 1784.
On 10 December 1811, an angry letter was published in the Kingston Gazette chastising the local community for their ignorance of the past. The letter was mysteriously signed with the initial “G” leaving the public at a loss as to who wrote the scandalous piece.29 The author of the letter has since been discovered to be Michael Grass, and the source of his anger was the construction of a new road in the Kingston Township. Grass objected to the construction of the road and, in an effort to establish why his opinion was worth hearing, he provided an account of the founding of Kingston in which he was the most important person. Grass believed that by fashioning himself as the founder of Kingston, he might be able to convince the community to abandon the construction project.
Grass’s letter in the Kingston Gazette begins, “SEVEN and twenty years, Mr. printer, have rolled away since my eyes for the second time beheld the shores of Cataraqui.”30 Grass’s letter went on to both lament the changes that had taken place in Kingston, but also expressed a sense of pride that the community had secured the prosperity which the Loyalist had originally set out to
Bay of Quinte.” Pioneer Life on the Bay of Quinte, Including Genealogies of Old Families and Biographical Sketches of Representative Citizens (Toronto: Ralph and Clark, 1904), 346. 29 Michael Grass, “For the Kingston Gazette,” Kingston Gazette, December 10, 1811. 30 Ibid.
achieve. The letter stated, “scarce the vestige of human habitation could be found in the whole extent of the Bay of Quinte!” before claiming that, “Not a settler had dared to penetrate the vast forest that skirted its shores.”31 According to Grass, only the “bark thatched wigwam of the savage” and the tents of the “hardy Loyalists” were visible along the Cataraqui shoreline in 1784 and nothing else.32
Grass asserted that he had gained the confidence of his fellow subjects while leading the expedition. Most importantly, Michael publicly laid claim to the title of “founder” of the settlement by triumphantly declaring, “I led the loyal band, I pointed out to them the site of their future metropolis, and gained for perfect principles a sanctuary.”33 According to Michael’s own account of the migration, it was he who was the principal actor in the journey and the person who secured a place of refuge for the companies of Loyalists. By writing the letter to the printer of the Kingston
Gazette, Michael was transforming the oral account into the written word to bolster his claim to the title of “founder” of the settlement at Cataraqui.
After Michael Grass’s death in 1813, his son John continued to speak of his father’s involvement in the Loyalist migration and helped carry the legend forward into the beginning of the new century long after Michael had passed away. John Grass’s version of the legend was recorded by Reverend James Richardson, a Methodist minister and bishop of Kingston, at some point before John’s death in 1849.34 John was just a young lad at the time of the Loyalist migration but offered Richardson an account of the journey to Cataraqui which included an idealised image
31 Michael Grass, “For the Kingston Gazette,” Kingston Gazette, December 10, 1811. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Reverend James Richardson (1791-1875) was a prominent naval officer, office holder, Methodist minister, and later bishop who resided in Kingston. Richardson conducted a number of interviews with Kingston residence in an effort to record the earliest accounts of the settlement but has commonly been understood as, “neither a great scholar nor a great preacher.” G.S. French, “RICHARDSON, JAMES (1791-1875),” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 10, University of Toronto/ Université Laval, 2003.
of his father. The following story covers the same people, events, and narrative as the previous rendition, but enhances Michael Grass’s level of importance and embellishes the challenges he overcame.
John’s narrative begins, “My father, Michael Grass, lived, at the breaking out of the
Revolutionary War, on a farm about 30 miles above New York.”35 On the eve of the American
Revolution, Michael had allegedly been approached by Patriot General Nicholas Herkimer and was offered a captain’s commission in the rebel forces to which Michael refused. According to
John, his father had rejected the offer by telling General Herkimer, “I have sworn allegiance to one King and I cannot serve any other.”36 Michael was subsequently forced to flee to the safety of
New York City and was shortly joined thereafter by his family. The Grass farm was seized by the rebels and Michael was forced to support his family as a saddle maker.
John Grass claimed that, “the British General commanding at New York, having heard my father had been a prisoner of the French at Frontenac… …sent for him to enquire about the place.”37 According to John, Michael had fought in the Seven Years’ War for the British and had been taken prisoner by the French sometime between 1755-1758. The British General who John was referring to was Sir Guy Carleton, the Commander-in-Chief of all British forces in North
America. According to John’s account, Carleton personally summoned Michael and asked him if he believed that Cataraqui was a suitable place for settlement. Having heard Grass’s positive reply
Carleton reportedly asked, “Would you be willing Mr. Grass to take charge of such as would be willing to go with you to Frontenac?”38 Michael was allowed three days to reach a decision. After
35 R.A. Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812: A Collection of Documents (Toronto: Champlain Society, 2013), 72. 36 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, 72. 37 Ibid, 72-73. 38 Ibid, 73.
the three days had ended, he accepted Carlton’s mission. The Loyalists boarded the eight ships provided by Carleton and reached the shores of Sorel, Quebec, before the winter of 1783-4. Living in crudely erected huts, the Loyalists weathered the bitter winter until the spring thaw allowed them to complete their journey to Cataraqui.39 Upon reaching their destination, the Associated
Loyalists pitched tents along the shoreline and patiently waited for the surveying parties sent by the colonial authorities to complete their work.
According to John’s narrative, Michael was paid a visit by none other than Governor
General Sir Frederick Haldimand in the summer of 1784. John claimed that Governor Haldimand had decided to inspect the Loyalist camp at Cataraqui and remarked to Michael, “Why Mr. Grass, you have indeed a fine country and I am really glad to find it so.”40 Having hobnobbed with
Haldimand, Michael then prepared himself to receive his long-anticipated reward of land at
Cataraqui. According to John, a rival Loyalist told Michael that, “The Governor will not give you the first choice of the land, but will prefer Sir John Johnson.”41 According to the legend, Michael disregarded the negative opinion and was rewarded with the first draw by Haldimand. In John’s version, Haldimand had addressed Michael stating, “Now you were the first person to mention this fine country and have been here formerly as a prisoner of war, you must have the first choice.”42
After Michael made his selection, Haldimand asked the Loyalist leader if it was too late in the season to plant any crops. Michael informed the Governor that turnips could still be sowed and harvested before the winter. According to John, Haldimand immediately sent for turnip seeds from
Montreal and distributed them amongst the Loyalist refugees.43
39 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, 73. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. The favourable relationship between Michael Grass and Sir Frederick Haldimand is seriously challenged by the archival evidence. On more than one occasion Haldimand scolded Grass for being too presumptuous about his role as the captain of the Companies of Associated Loyalists. 43 Ibid.
During John’s story, Michael had rubbed shoulders with no less than four significant historical figures during the course of one year. Michael allegedly conversed with General
Nicholas Herkimer, Commander-in-Chief Sir Guy Carleton, Superintendent General Sir John
Johnson, and Governor General Sir Frederick Haldimand. The extraordinary nature of Michael’s travels were amplified by John’s tendency to use romantic language when retelling the story to
Reverend Richardson. John’s narrative of Michael Grass led Reverend Richardson to conclude that, “Mr. Grass… …may be safely styled the patriarch of the settlement.”44
There remains one final, and most exaggerated, account of Michael’s involvement in the
Loyalist migration that warrants an examination. The third account was presented by Robert Grass, one of Michael’s grandsons, to prominent Upper Canadian surgeon and historian William
Canniff.45 William Canniff conducted an interview with Robert and inquired into the Loyalist migration to Cataraqui in 1784, later printed in History of the Settlement of Upper Canada, published in 1869.
Robert’s version of the legend contained numerous differences to the previous renditions from 1811 and 1849. Within half a century, the Legend of Captain Michael Grass had already undergone a considerable evolution as the dates, names, and locations had changed. Robert’s version begins with the start of the Revolutionary War when Michael was allegedly captured at the onset of the conflict by a group of Indigenous warriors who hailed from Cataraqui.46 Robert claimed that Michael was brought to Cataraqui by the Indigenous peoples and was apparently allowed to live alongside them. Michael was given many privileges and was allowed to move
44 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, 75-76. 45 William Canniff (1858-1908) was a physician, medical educator, author, and civil servant, from Belleville. Canniff was interested in the history of Upper Canada and conducted interviews with the descendants of Loyalists which were published in The History of the Settlement of Upper Canada. Heather MacDougall, “CANNIFF, WILLIAM,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 13, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003. 46 William Canniff, History of the Settlement of Upper Canada, (Ontario) with Special Reference to the Bay of Quinté (Toronto: Dudley & Burns, 1869), 650.
about the region freely, even going so far as to permit Grass to hunt and fish within the vicinity of
Fort Frontenac.47
According to Robert, Michael and two other prisoners planned a daring escape that was foiled before it could be carried out sometime during the American Revolution. The foiled escape attempt did not dismay Michael and his companions, for a second attempt was met with success and the fugitives slipped away from Cataraqui under the cover of darkness. Robert claimed that,
“Again they attempted, carrying with them provisions, which they had managed to collect, sufficient to last them a week.”48 Having made it beyond the confines of Fort Frontenac, the three prisoners broke out into the open wilderness and embarked upon an arduous escape.
According to Robert’s account, “it was nine weeks before they [the prisoners] reached an
English settlement, one having died by the way from hunger and exposure.”49 In his retelling of the legend, Robert speculated that it was Michael’s knowledge of Cataraqui that he gained as a prisoner of war which led to his appointment as the leader of the Companies of Associated
Loyalists by Carleton in 1783. After the prisoners made their way to the nearest British settlement,
Michael journeyed to New York City and remained there until the conclusion of the war.50 Robert claims that Michael did not occupy any office during the war, but was given a captain’s commission only after the hostilities had ended.
In Robert’s account, the Loyalists sailed from New York at the conclusion of the war in seven ships (wherein John’s narrative it was eight) and left the harbour bound for Sorel, Quebec.
During the voyage, Robert claimed that there was an incredibly violent storm that lasted eight days
47 Canniff, History and Settlement of Upper Canada, 650. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.
nearly wrecking the Loyalist fleet before it made landfall.51 Upon landing at Sorel, Robert states that the men of the expedition pressed forward to their destination and proceeded westward for a long period of time. Robert’s account includes a romantic episode in which Michael symbolically drove a stake in the ground near Collins Bay with the intention of fixing a tent upon the rocky landscape. According to Robert, Michael made a clever quip out of the awkward situation,
“Remarking that he [Grass] had come too far to settle upon a rock.”52 Michael Grass and the scouting party returned to Sorel before the winter set in, and the following spring the refugees completed the final leg of their journey.
Robert claimed that his grandfather had been rewarded with preferential treatment by the colonial authorities.53 In Robert’s account, Michael is said to have had a superior claim to title over the land at Cataraqui. Robert reported that, “The first township, we have seen, was chiefly granted to captain Grass and the band of loyalists who came from New York under his guidance, notwithstanding some objection from Sir John Johnson, and the officers of his regiment.”54 In
Robert’s story, there were tensions between Michael and Sir John Jonson, but ultimately it was
Grass who emerged victorious. Robert’s story comes to an end with the victory over Sir John
Johnson and a happy ending for his grandfather. Robert’s brief account of his grandfather’s exploits made William Canniff conclude that, “Captain Grass naturally took a leading part at least during the first years of the settlement at Kingston.”55
What is significant about the Michael, John, and Robert Grass’s accounts of the Loyalist migration, is that together, these three generations of stories form the basis of the Legend of
51 Canniff, History and Settlement of Upper Canada, 244. 52 Ibid, 422. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid, 439. 55 Ibid, 651.
Captain Michael Grass. With each retelling, the legend was increasingly injected with mythical qualities until the first rendition hardly resembled the last. What these three versions also reveal is that there is a considerable amount of subjectivity in the legend since each version contains dissimilarities to the last. The fact that all three accounts disagree on dates, events, and locations suggest that the legend had already undergone a substantial evolution in a short period of time.
With each retelling, the level of importance placed on Michael in the narrative is magnified, the amount of significant people he meets is increased, and the trials he must overcome are multiplied.
By the mid-nineteenth century the Legend of Captain Michael Grass had largely been formed. Subsequent researchers based their understanding of Michael on the legend, rather than critically engaging with the evidence. An example can be found in Pioneer Life on the Bay of
Quinte published in 1904. The monograph confidently states, “Truly it may be said that Captain
Michael Grass was the founder of Kingston; the first citizen in the Bay of Quinte.”56 The legend is both misleading and ill-informed, necessitating a critical interrogation of the details of the loyalist migration. By revisiting the archival sources created during the Loyalist migration, we can dispel the myths that have become intertwined in the Legend of Captain Michael Grass.
III. “Scarce the Vestige of Human Habitation”: Cataraqui Before the Loyalists
At the heart of the claim that Michael Grass was the founder of Kingston, is the assumption that the Loyalists initiated the first settlement at Cataraqui. According to the Legend of Captain
Michael Grass, the region had remained an untouched wilderness laying beyond the boundaries of
British settlement in Canada during the 1780s. This understanding is incorrect and fails to acknowledge the numerous communities that called Cataraqui home prior to the Loyalists sudden
56 Pioneer Life on the Bay of Quinte, 346.
appearance in 1784. More importantly, the legend fails to acknowledge that a group of Mississauga had occupied Cataraqui for nearly 100 years prior to the British.57 The arrival of the Loyalists and subsequent removal of the Mississauga marked the beginning of settler colonialism on the north shore of Lake Ontario. As more refugees arrived, the colonial authorities were able to thoroughly unwed the Mississauga from their ancestral land through treaty-making. In the case of the
Mississauga at Cataraqui, the treaty in question is the Crawford Purchase of 1783-4.
The actions of the emerging settler society to initiate the removal of the Mississauga through the use of treaties is characteristic of the logic of elimination and settler colonialism.
Within the context of Cataraqui, the Legend of Captain Michael Grass embodies the logic of elimination because it is a settler society fiction that justifies the dispossession of the Mississauga and provides rationale for the sudden appearance of white settlers at Cataraqui. Thus, the Legend of Captain Michael Grass represents the logic of elimination because it justified the removal of the
Indigenous population from the land and celebrated the arrival of the Associated Loyalists who introduced settler colonialism to the north shore of Lake Ontario.
The aim of this section is to demonstrate that the Loyalists were not the first people to call the region home which is implied by the legend. The presence of multiple groups at Cataraqui before the arrival of the Loyalists fundamentally complicates the claim that the region was a barren and uninhabited wilderness before Grass arrived in 1784. Between 1650 and 1783, the region was home to the Haudenosaunee, Mississauga, French, and even the British. Thus, far from being a barren and uninhabited wilderness, Cataraqui was occupied at various times by a number of different groups.
57 Smith, “The Dispossession of the Mississauga Indians,” 23.
The Legend of Captain Michael Grass fails to acknowledge that numerous communities called Cataraqui home prior to the arrival of the Loyalists in 1784. A specifically important dimension to the legend is the denial of Indigenous ties to the land. The Wendat and Mississauga occupied the north shore of Lake Ontario from time immemorial to the 1650s.58 During the seventeenth century, the conflict known as the Iroquois Wars (1603-1701) pitted the Wendat,
Mississauga, and a coalition of Great Lakes peoples, against their traditional enemies, the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy. The Haudenosaunee’s territory was located on the south shore of
Lake Ontario, but a string of successful attacks against the Wendat and Mississauga gave them control of large portions of the north shore by 1650.59 Between 1650-1670 the Haudenosaunee used the northeastern end of Lake Ontario as a hunting ground and frequently visited Cataraqui.60
In the following decade the Haudenosaunee began to establish settlements and a sustained presence in the area. But by 1690, however, the momentum of the conflict had reversed in favour of the
Wendat, Mississauga, and their other Great Lakes allies. A series of successful attacks drove the
Haudenosaunee back to the south shore of Lake Ontario and away from Cataraqui.
With the conclusion of the Iroquois Wars in 1701, the Mississauga had replaced the
Haudenosaunee settlements on the north shore and would remain there until their dispossession by the Loyalists a century later. The Mississauga villages were comprised of birchbark wigwams like the other Anishinaabe peoples and they practised agriculture.61 All things considered, the
Mississauga village located at Cataraqui bore all the vestiges of human habitation. Thus, Cataraqui had been the site of a sustained settlement by numerous Indigenous communities over the course
58 Peter S. Schmalz, The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 18. 59 Schmalz, The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario, 18. 60 Ibid. 61 Leroy V. Eid, “The Ojibwa-Iroquois Wars: The War the Five Nations Did Not Win,” Ethnohistory 26. No. 4 (1979): 306.
of the seventeenth century, the most recent being the Mississauga who still occupied the land when the Loyalists arrived in 1784.
The French were another distinct group that had arrived in the Cataraqui region during the
1670s with the intention of creating a settlement there. They had supplied arms and ammunition to the Wendat and Mississauga during the Iroquois Wars and established an outpost at Cataraqui for commercial and military purposes.62 The Governor-General of New France, Louis de Baude de Frontenac, had an “expansionist policy of westward development” and constructed Fort
Frontenac at Cataraqui in 1673.63 The French outpost functioned as a defensive position, fur trading station, and supply depot for military incursions into Iroquoia. Despite the presence of
French at Cataraqui in 1673, historian Allan Greer has argued that the establishment of outposts in Canada during the seventeenth century do not qualify as settler colonialism because Indigenous peoples continued to retain dominance in these regions.64 It is only with the absence of the French-
British inter-imperial rivalry that the Indigenous peoples at Cataraqui became the victims of a power imbalance beginning in 1783 with the arrival of the Loyalists.
In 1688 the Haudenosaunee laid siege to the French fort in retaliation for the capture of innocent women and children. As a result of the Haudenosaunee siege, the fort experienced a brief period of abandonment from 1689-1695. As seen in Figure 2, the fort consisted of permanent dwellings, a chapel, cultivated fields, and surrounding cabins, which were the main staples of
European settlement.65 Thus, over 100 years before the arrival of the Loyalists and Michael Grass,
62 W.J. Eccles, The French in North America: 1500-1783 (Markham: Fizhenry & Whiteside, 1998), 95. 63 Ibid. 64 Greer, “Settler Colonialism and Empire in Early America,” 383. 65 Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry, Plan du Fort Frontenac ou Cataracouy [Maps/Atlases], Scale [ca. 1:332], 1720.
a different European power had established themselves on the very spot where modern day
Kingston stands.
There is also compelling evidence that the French presence at Cataraqui extended beyond the immediate vicinity of the fort’s walls. The most famous example is that of French-born
Madeleine de Roybon D’Allonne, a minor noblewomen who came to New France in the late seventeenth century.66 D’Allonne was rumoured to have been romantically involved with La Salle, an arrangement which may have enabled her to establish a seigneurie at Cataraqui.67 D’Allone’s seigneurie was comprised of a small farm and was occupied from 1681-1687. The seigneurie
Figure 2. “Plan du Fort Frontenac ou Cataracouy” (c.1720) by Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry, showing the French settlement and gardens along with fourteen “Cabannes des Sauvages,” or dwellings belonging to the Indigenous peoples. Source: Edward E. Ayer Collection, Newberry Library Collection.
66 Céline Dupré, “ROYBON D’ALLONNE, MADELEINE DE,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol 2, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003. 67 Ibid.
came to an end in 1687 however, when D’Allonne was captured by a Haudenosaunee raiding party and taken to Onondaga on the south shore of Lake Ontario.68
As a captive, D’Allonne was first brought to Albany and then to Montreal, where she secured her freedom. For some unspecified reason, D’Allonne was actively prevented from returning to Cataraqui to take up her abandoned farm by the French colonial authorities. The issue was even brought before Rigaud de Vaudreuil who determined that D’Allonne was too old by
1717 to return to the remote outpost.69 Thus, D’Allonne’s farm and the small French settlement beyond the confines of Fort Frontenac were subject to deterioration. The case of Madeleine de
Roybon D’Allonne is significant because it reveals that the French outpost at Cataraqui was much more than just a remote garrison and fulfilled the necessary criteria to be considered a settlement.
The French presence at Cataraqui however, came to a sudden end during the Seven Years’
War (1754-1763). British Lieutenant-Colonel John Bradstreet travelled up the Mohawk River in
August 1758 with 3,000 troops bound for Fort Frontenac.70 After a brief exchange of cannon fire and a siege lasting only two days, the French commander Pierre-Jacques Payen de Noyan et de
Chavoy called a council of war and decided to surrender the fort and surrounding territory to the
British on 28 August 1758.71 The Battle of Fort Frontenac, as it has come to be known, resulted in a swift British victory leading to the permanent removal of the French garrison from Cataraqui.
The surrender of Fort Frontenac in 1758 marked the end of the French presence at
Cataraqui but launched a new phase of occupation by another European power, the British. As early as 1759, a year after Bradstreet’s victory at Cataraqui, the British sent a small garrison to the
68 Dupré, “ROYBON D’ALLONNE.” 69 Ibid. 70 Fred Anderson, Crucible of War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (New York: Vintage, 2001), 397. 71 Eccles, The French in North America, 218-219.
ruins of Fort Frontenac to occupy the region as the conquest of Canada was entering its final phases.72 The British garrison’s occupation of Cataraqui was brief however, and the contingent of troops departed the area that same year. Another British expedition was sent to Cataraqui in
September 1760 led by Major Robert Rogers of the Queen’s Rangers.73 Major Roberts stopped at the ruins of the fort during a mission that brought him from Detroit to Montreal, and later reported that there was a small community of “visiting Indian hunters” living at Cataraqui.74
Historian R.A. Preston published a collection of colonial documents regarding Kingston prior to the War of 1812 and records numerous instances of people visiting Cataraqui during the period of alleged abandonment. In his analysis of the colonial records, Preston discovered convincing evidence that the region was still frequently visited by local Indigenous peoples and
European traders between 1760 and 1777 when the ruins of Fort Frontenac were allegedly unoccupied. According to Preston, “A few traders, most notably a French Canadian named
Dumoulin, went specifically to ‘Cataraqui’ and parts of Lake Ontario including the Bay of
Quinte.”75 Preston’s assertion is significant because it suggests that there was at least some level of continuous Indigenous and European presence at Cataraqui by various groups between 1760-
1777.
The start of the American Revolution in 1775 brought Cataraqui to the forefront of the
British defensive system along the St. Lawrence River in an attempt to prevent an American invasion into Canada. Governor Haldimand, who commanded the British forces in Canada, considered reconstructing Fort Frontenac in 1777 to help defend the region.76 Haldimand
72 Canniff, History of the Settlement of Upper Canada, 420. 73 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, xxxvii. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.
ultimately abandoned the plan and instead built an entirely new fort just nine miles to the southeast on Carleton Island. The new fort was named in honour of the governor and Fort Haldimand soon became the British hub of activity at the headwaters of the St. Lawrence River.
A year after the construction of Fort Haldimand began the governor dispatched numerous
British agents on reconnaissance missions to Fort Frontenac to assess the condition of the ruins.
These reconnaissance missions typically reported that the region was “indefensible and barren” but still possessed the best natural harbour in Cataraqui.77 On 26 May 1783, Major Holland, the
Surveyor General of the colony, was ordered by Haldimand to visit Cataraqui to consider the site for a settlement in the near future. Holland’s report back to Haldimand contrasted the earlier bleak assessments, for Holland found Fort Frontenac in better condition than he had been led to believe.
Having received the news that Fort Frontenac was habitable, Haldimand ordered the British garrison at Fort Oswego to Cataraqui to start reconstructing the old French defenses.78 According to historian Jane Errington, the arrival of British regulars to the frontier ahead of the Loyalist refugees, “provided protection, enabling Upper Canadians to build their homes and businesses secure from the terrors of the wilderness.”79 The presence of the British regulars at Cataraqui, who arrived prior to the Loyalists, gave the new settlers a marked advantage by offering them unparallel protection along the north shore of Lake Ontario.
The Oswego garrison arrived with 400 troops commanded by Major Ross and were soon met by workmen from Fort Haldimand.80 The Fort Haldimand garrison supplied Major Ross with provisions and assisted in moving entire houses from Carleton Island to the mainland. Haldimand also instructed Major Ross to oversee the construction of both a sawmill and a gristmill at
77 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, xl-xli. 78 Ibid, xli-xlii. 79 Errington, The Lion, the Eagle, and Upper Canada, 22. 80 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, xl-xli.
Cataraqui, revealing Haldimand’s intention to create a permanent settlement with the capability to expand in the region.81
During the summer of 1783, Deputy Surveyor John Collins was ordered to conduct a series of surveys to create township lines containing individual 120-acre lots for settlers.82 Collins’s work was done in preparation for the arrival of the Companies of Associated Loyalists bound for
Cataraqui. Collins was also joined by another military authority and a newly arrived captain of a
Company of Associated Loyalists by the name of Michael Grass. By the time that Collins and
Grass landed at Cataraqui in the autumn of 1783, they would have been met by the British garrison, numerous buildings, and Indigenous peoples building a community on the west bank of the
Cataraqui River.
There is proof of a sizable community at Cataraqui in August 1783 based on an eyewitness watercolour painting by James Peachey as seen in Figure 3. Already home to a number of British soldiers, buildings, a sawmill, a gristmill, and a bustling war, the community had also attracted a small number of merchants who traveled to Cataraqui to ply their craft.83 According to R.A.
Preston, “These men- Robert Haldimand, a merchant who had come from Carleton Island, John
Howell, a sutler, and Peter Clark, a merchant from Montreal, along with Lieutenants John Howard and Oliver Church – were the first British residents of the future town of Kingston of whom we have record.”84
81 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, xl-xli. 82 Little is known about John Collins before he secured the position of Deputy Surveyor General of Quebec in 1764. Some historians speculate that Collins was a Quebec merchant before becoming a surveyor. After the American Revolution, Collins played a vital role in the surveying of Cataraqui in 1783 on the orders of Governor Haldimand. Robert J. Hayward, “COLLINS, JOHN (d. 1795),” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol 4, University of Toronto/ Université Laval, 2003. 83 Ibid, xlv-xlvi. 84 Ibid.
Figure 3. “A Southeast View of Cataraqui on Lake Ontario, August 1783” Watercolour by James Peachy. Peachy depicts the growing settlement a year before the arrival of the Loyalists. Note the prominent depiction of Indigenous peoples in the foreground of the image. Source: Library and Archives Canada/C-1511).
As more Europeans arrived at Cataraqui in the summer of 1783, the Mississauga became increasingly alarmed. The British had begun reconstructing the defenses at Cataraqui without the permission of their Indigenous allies. By October 1783, the British could no longer ignore the
Mississauga’s grave concerns and were forced to reach an agreement as to the nature of the British settlement. Captain W.R. Crawford was “instructed to conduct the negotiations for a purchase of lands from the Mississauga’s of Kingston and the Bay of Quinté.”85 There was no physical deed created during the Crawford Purchase and the boundaries of said purchase were incredibly vague.
85 William Redford Crawford (1750-1832) was born in New Jersey and was part of the King’s Royal Regiment of New York during the American Revolution, serving with distinction. Crawford had close connections with the Mississauga having served on raids with them during the Revolutionary War and conducted the negotiation because of his established relationship with the Indigenous peoples. Gwen Reimer, “British-Canada’s land Purchases, 1783- 1788: A Strategic Perspective,” Ontario History 11, no 1 (Spring 2019): 40.
The norther boundary was particularly ambiguous as it extended, “as far North as a common Gun
Shot can be heard” but failed to even specify as to what type of gun the terms were referring to.86
By agreeing to the Crawford Purchase, the Mississauga initially believed that they had made a series of useful land rental agreements. The British, however, interpreted the purchase as the extinguishing of the Mississauga’s rightful title to the land.87 Considering the lack of a written deed and the basic misunderstanding regarding the nature of the agreement, it appears that the
British intended on securing control of Cataraqui from their Indigenous allies through deceit.
Thirty-six years after the Crawford Purchase was finalised, an anonymous Mississauga chief reflected on the event remarking that, “We protected you [the British] till you became a mighty tree that spread throughout our hunting land. With its branches you now lash us.”88
Tracing the history of Cataraqui before the arrival of Michael Grass and the Companies of
Associated Loyalists is important because it reveals that the area was home to numerous communities prior to Grass’s arrival. According to the settler society fiction of the Legend of
Captain Michael Grass, Cataraqui was an untouched wilderness laying beyond the boundaries of
British settlement in Canada in the 1780s. The implied understanding, however, is incorrect since
Cataraqui was occupied by at least four distinct groups between 1650-1783 and was home to a growing settlement. Although each of the distinct communities, the Haudenosaunee, Mississauga,
French, and British, had different intentions when occupying the region, it is evident that a nearly continuous Indigenous and European presence occurred at Cataraqui. Thus, Michael Grass and the
Loyalists were not the first people to call Cataraqui home, nor were they even the first Europeans
86 Reimer, “British-Canada’s land Purchases,” 45. 87 Smith, “The Dispossession of the Mississauga Indians,” 32. 88 Ibid, 43.
to do so. The following section examines the archival documents created during the Loyalist migration of 1783 to assess Michael Grass’s level of influence during the journey.
IV. “He Assumes to Himself the Title of Proprietor”: Michael Grass Arrives
This section examines the validity of the claim that Michael Grass was the first person to have pointed Cataraqui out as a suitable place for the resettlement of the Loyalist refugees at the end of the Revolutionary War. According to the legend, the idea to settle companies of refugee
Loyalists in the region originated with Michael Grass. The legend also claims that Grass took on a leading role in the constriction of the settlement and held a position of authority within the emerging community. This section explores the degree to which Michael Grass was able to exert his influence over the migration and how his demands were received by the colonial authorities.
The fact that Grass led the eight companies has often been conflated with the idea that he was the principal decision-maker at Cataraqui. By examining the series of correspondence created by the colonial authorities, it becomes evident that Grass was not the principal actor and played a far more limited role in the migration than popularised by the legend.
As previously mentioned, with the onset of the American Revolution Michael Grass fled his farm in Canajoharie to the safety of New York City in 1777. While in New York, Michael joined the militia and received a commission from General James Sullivan on 2 February 1780, acting as the First Lieutenant in Company 39.89 As the Peace of Paris was being negotiated in
1782, it became increasingly apparent to the Loyalists in New York that they could not reintegrate into American society after the war and would instead be exiled. Considering his situation in New
York City, Michael Grass initially entertained the idea of moving his family to Port Roseway,
89 Michael Grass, “Michael Grass to Lord Dorchester Sir Guy Carleton,” December 3, 1789.
Nova Scotia, in 1782 like many other Loyalists in his position.90 The Grass family, however, decided against moving to Port Roseway and instead developed a new plan to travel to the ruins of Fort Frontenac at Cataraqui.
To attract Loyalists for his expedition, Michael Grass placed an advertisement in the Royal
American Gazette, a prominent New York City newspaper on 26 May 1783. The advertisement invited refugees to sign up for the expedition at Grass’s house on Chatham Street.91 In doing so, the refugees could secure for themselves the status of “Associated Loyalist” a title which was thought to have given Loyalists more clout when dealing with the American Government in search of war reparations. The most significant part is that the advertisement confirms Grass’s explicit wish to, “form a settlement on Fort Frontenac, at the mouth of Lake Ontario & head of the River
St. Lawrence.”92 According to the advertisement, the ruins of Fort Frontenac were, “The only eligible place left by the late treaty for the King’s subjects, to carry on the Indian & fur trade, etc.”93 It is clear that one of Grass’s principal aims of the expedition was to divert the fur trade to
Cataraqui, perhaps slighting the traders in the Province of New York who had been his neighbours prior to the exodus.
The Royal American Gazette advertisement gives a unique insight into another aspect of the story: whether the conversation between Sir Guy Carleton and Michael Grass was initiated by
Carleton, which is in accordance with the legend. The legend claims that Grass was personally sought-out by Carleton, which had the effect of elevating Grass’s importance by asserting his affluence within the Loyalist community.94 The advertisement states that Michael’s “request has
90 Turner, Voyage of a Different Kind, 42. 91 Michael Grass, “Those Loyalists,” Royal American Gazette, May 26, 1783. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid. 94 Turner, Voyage of a Different Kind, 43.
been communicated to his Excellency the Commander in Chief.”95 Based on the passage, it appears as if Michael had been the one to approach Carleton, and not the other way around. Besides, it remains contradictory that Carleton would have summoned Grass to testify to the suitability of
Cataraqui in 1783, when Carleton himself had been the Governor of the entire colony for eleven years (1766-1777) and would have had more knowledgeable contacts to consult with.96
What can be conclude, however, is that Michael had initiated his own plan to settle at
Cataraqui by 26 May 1783. But just as Grass began to organise the companies of refugees in New
York City, an important development was simultaneously occurring in Quebec, Canada. Governor
Haldimand had also decided that Cataraqui was a suitable location for settlement and was in the process of readying the region for the reception of Great Britain’s Mohawk allies and other groups of Loyalists on the very same day that Grass’s advertisement appeared in the Royal American
Gazette, 26 May 1783.
Governor Haldimand had written to Surveyor General Holland on 26 May 1783, instructing him “to proceed to Cataraqui, where you will minutely examine into the Situation and State of the
Post formerly occupied by the French… …considering the facility of establishing Settlement there.”97 As the highest ranking representative of His Majesty King George III in Canada,
Governor Haldimand had learned of the preliminary terms and conditions of the Peace of Paris as early as 1779, before the treaty was finished.98 One of the conditions was the creation of the border between Canada and the American Provinces. The new border traced the contours of the St.
Lawrence River and placed Carleton Island firmly within the new American territory, depriving
95 Turner, Voyage of a Different Kind, 43. 96 A.G. Bradley, Sir Guy Carleton (Lord Dorchester) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966), 164. 97 Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Samuel Holland,” Quebec, May 26, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 124 pp. 88-89. 98 Jean N. McIlwraith, Sir Frederick Haldimand (Toronto: Morgan & Co. Limited, 1904), 124.
the British of their only military position in the region. As a result of the embarrassing loss of Fort
Haldimand on Carleton Island, the Governor decided to pull the British defensive line back to the ruins of Fort Frontenac. What is significant is that Grass and Haldimand both set into motion their independent plans to settle Loyalists at Cataraqui on the exact same day, 26 May 1783. Because
Haldimand and Grass both planned to settle the region, it seriously challenges the assertion that
Grass was the first and only person to have pointed out Cataraqui as a desirable place to send refugees.
Haldimand had decided to settle refugee Loyalists at Cataraqui by 26 May 1783, but only weeks later on 4 and 5 June, Sir Guy Carleton proposed the exact same plan to him in a series of letters. Carleton’s first letter suggested that Cataraqui was a suitable region for the resettlement of the Loyalists, a conclusion which Haldimand had already reached. Carleton requested that
Haldimand arrange for the “Grants of Land to those Persons in the Neighbourhood of Frontenac, where they [the Loyalists] are desirous to settle, and without any Reservation of Rents.”99
Carleton’s second letter, dated 5 June 1783, included a list of the names of the Loyalists interested in journeying to Cataraqui and informed the Governor that they have been organised into eight companies of militia under the command of officers known as “captains.”
Carleton was quite explicit with the nature of the captain’s commissions he granted to the
Loyalists. Carleton informed Haldimand that he enclosed, “Temporary Commissions, which I have given those Officers, to be in force until further directions.”100 Thus, the captain’s commissions were only meant to last for a limited period and were not intended to be permanent distinctions.
99 Sir Guy Carleton, “Sir Guy Carleton to Sir Frederick Haldimand,” New York City, June 4, 1783. PAC Haldimand Mcc B 148 p. 147. 100 Sir Guy Carleton, “Sir Guy Carleton to Sir Frederick Haldimand,” New York City, June 5, 1783. PAC Haldimand Mcc B 148 p. 148.
Despite the temporary nature of the commissions, Grass insited on presenting himself as “Captain
Michael Grass” up until the time of his death in 1813.
Haldimand’s next move was to dispatch Surveyor General Holland and Mohawk leader
Joseph Brant to Cataraqui to begin preparing the region for the settlement of the Indigenous allies.101 Haldimand finally received Carleton’s letters from 4 and 5 June only after Holland and
Brant had departed on their mission. Haldimand responded to Carleton by thanking him for his suggestion to settle Cataraqui, but informed the Commander-in-Chief of his plan to relocate the
Mohawk there. In a letter dated 7 July 1783, Haldimand informed Carleton that, “I have long since taken every preparatory Step in my power to afford those of them [Loyalist refugees] within my knowledge every Succour this Province, as an Asylum, can produce.”102 Haldimand already designated Cataraqui as a destination for Loyalists refugees and the reconnaissance mission conducted by numerous British agents is evidence of his intention.
Between 30 July and 11 September 1783, three significant developments were made in rapid succession. First, Major John Ross’s contingent of 400 soldiers from Fort Oswego arrived at
Cataraqui.103 Major Ross and his troops presided over Cataraqui for an entire year prior to the
Loyalists arrival. Historian R.A. Preston goes as far as to claim that, “He [Major Ross] remained to become, in a much more real sense than Michael Grass who is sometimes given the credit, the founder of the settlement which was to be the future Kingston.”104 Second, workmen and provisions were transported from Fort Haldimand to the ruins of Fort Frontenac. And third, Deputy
101 Joseph Brant (1743-1807) was a Mohawk military and political leader from the Province of New York. During the American Revolution, Brant and his Mohawk warriors sided with the British and conducted raids along the New York frontier before settling in Upper Canada. Barbara Graymont, “THAYENDANEGEA,” in Dictionary of Canada Biography, vol. 5, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003. 102 Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Sir Guy Carleton,” Quebec, July 7, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 148 pp. 161-162. 103 Preston, Kingston Before the War of 1812, xliii. 104 Ibid, lii.
Surveyor John Collins was sent to Cataraqui to begin the task of partitioning the land into five townships.105 These three important advancements were planned and executed by Haldimand in preparation for the refugees led by Michael Grass. By the time Grass and the eight companies arrived, all the planning and much of the construction of the settlement had already been completed.
John Collins soon after led a small party to Cataraqui consisting of his assistants, as well as “Mr. Grass Capt. of one of the Companies of Militia intended for that Settlement.”106 Governor
Haldimand was careful to refer to Michael as “Mr. Grass” which once again reflected the temporary nature of his captain’s commission. Haldimand had also provided shelter for the
Loyalists at Sorel but had not yet secured permission to settle the refugees at Cataraqui from his superiors in Great Britain. On 27 August 1783, Haldimand wrote to Home Secretary Lord North requesting permission to resettle the Loyalists refugees in Canada. Haldimand informed North, “I am making preparations agreeable to their Request for a settlement of Royalists near Cataraqui.”107
Unfortunately for Haldimand, his letter never reached the desk of Lord North for one reason or another, and the Governor received no further instructions for the relocation of the Loyalists.
On 6 November 1783, Governor Haldimand wrote another letter to Lord North regarding
Cataraqui and accepted full responsibility for the decision to allow Loyalists to settle in the region if it displeased His Majesty. “My Lord” Haldimand began, “I have to express the great regret which
I feel at not having received Dispatches from England.”108 Haldimand expressed the urgency of his situation and explained that his decision to settle the refugees was made with the intention of
105 Reimer, “British-Canada’s Land Purchases,” 40. 106 Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to John Collins,” Quebec, September 11, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 124 pp. 91-94. 107 Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Lord North,” Quebec, August 27, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 56 p. 132. 108 Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Lord North,” Quebec, November 6, 1783. PAC Haldimand Q 23, p 5.
relieving the government from the mounting financial burden of housing the refugees. Haldimand stated that “In order to exempt the Government from these Expenses, I lose no time in preparing a
Settlement for them at or near Cataraqui.”109 Governor Haldimand was acting independently and without direction from his superiors while orchestrating the relocation of the Loyalists and had to strike a fine balance between the needs of the refugees and the already strained financial resources of the colony.
The construction of buildings at Cataraqui in the summer of 1783 did not go unnoticed by the local Mississauga who had called the region home for the last hundred years. Haldimand had planned on creating an entire settlement at Cataraqui without consulting the Mississauga whose territory the prospected settlement would preside over. On 9 October 1783, Captain William
Redford Crawford was instructed by Haldimand to purchase the tract of land consisting of
Cataraqui and the surrounding region from the Mississauga, thus securing the title to the land for the British and initiating the removal of the Indigenous community.110
As the fall of 1783 transitioned to winter, the Associated Loyalists led by Michael Grass were living in crudely erected log huts at Sorel and were in desperate need of provisions.111
Considering the bleak position of his fellow Loyalists, Grass took it upon himself to write to
Governor Haldimand on 18 January 1784, requesting immediate assistance. Grass requested that the refugees be treated as generously as the Loyalists who had ventured to Nova Scotia instead of
Sorel, and then provided a list of demands which he thought should be met by the military authorities. The list of demands included enough boards, nails, shingles, and glass for each Loyalist
109 E.A. Cruikshank, The Settlement of the United Empire Loyalists on the Upper St. Lawrence and Bay of Quinte in 1784: A Document Record (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society, 1934), 23. 110 Reimer, “British-Canada’s Land Purchases,” 41. 111 McIlwraith, Sir Frederick Haldimand, 183.
family to construct their own homes, as well as guns, ammunition, and axes for their defense.112
As Major Robert Mathews later stated, the Loyalists demanded, “no less than stocking farms” from the colonial authorities.113 The most striking demand in Michael Grass’s petition, however, was the outcry for “a Form of Government as nearly similar to that which they [the Loyalists] Enjoyed in the Province of New York in the year 1763.”114 Governor Haldimand had arranged for a considerable amount of resources to be allocated for the reception of the refugee Loyalists. The additional demands for representational government, made in the wake of the American
Revolution, only worsened the relationship between the newly arrived Michael Grass and the colonial authorities.
Haldimand’s response was to be delivered through the Inspector of the Loyalist at Sorel,
Stephen De Lancey. De Lancey was informed “that the substance of their [the Loyalists] request is so different from the Instructions which His excellency had received from the King… …that He
[Haldimand] cannot think of complying with it.”115 The letter also mentioned that the stocking of farms on such a large scale as proposed by Grass was “utterly impossible.”116 Finally, Haldimand informed Grass that absolutely no change would be made to the form of government in the province without an Act of Legislature, which would not be forthcoming.
As a result of the extreme nature of the demands, De Lancey was also instructed to pass on a message directly to Michael. Haldimand issued Grass the following warning, that “If His
112 Michael Grass, “The Petition of His Majesty’s Faithful Emigrated Under the Conduct of Captain Michael Grass from New York to this Place,” Sorel, January 1784. n.d. Haldimand Papers Mss B 165 p.143. 113 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, March 2, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 109-110. 114 Turner, Voyage of a Different Kind, 124. As an associated Loyalist, it is surprising that one of the primary demands made by Michel Grass in the petition was for the establishment of representational government after having just lost his home and property for upholding the principles and traditions of the British monarchy. 115 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, March 2, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 109-110. 116 Ibid.
Excellency’s endeavours for the happy settlement of the Loyalists in this Province… …do not suit the views of Mr. Grass… …a passage will be provided for them to Nova Scotia, as early as the season will permit.”117 In other words, if Grass and the Associated Loyalists were unsatisfied with the generous accommodations already provided by Governor Haldimand, then they would quickly be sent to Nova Scotia without remorse.
The growing tensions between Grass and the colonial authorities did not end with the rejection of the outlandish petition. By April 1784, a disagreement arose between Grass and a fellow Loyalist captain by the name of Peter van Alstine. Van Alstine was a well-respected British
Major during the Revolutionary War and had followed Michael Grass’s party to Sorel with his own company of Loyalists. Historian Jane Errington has argued that the Loyalists traveling to
Upper Canada in the wake of the American Revolution were not as homogenous and united in their cause as historians once imagined.118 The dispute that arose between Grass and Van Alstine illustrates Errington’s observation. Grass felt as if Peter Van Alstine, a younger man of higher rank, was usurping his power and launched a formal complaint against his fellow Loyalist.
Unfortunately, there is no copy of Grass’s complaint, but the preserved response from the colonial authorities gives us some insight into the substance the charges leveled against Van Alstine.
The charges brought against Van Alstine by Grass were addressed by Major Robert
Mathews on 15 April 1784. Mathews stated that the accusation was of a “very extraordinary
Nature” due to Van Alstine’s “General good character.”119 The most significant element of
Mathews letter, however, was the insult that Grass had delivered to the colonial authorities by
117 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, March 2, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 109-110. 118 Errington, The Lion, the Eagles, and Upper Canada, 4-5. 119 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, April 15, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 212-213.
having assumed himself to be the proprietor of the land at Cataraqui while denouncing Van Alstine.
Mathew’s letter stated that “His Excellency is much displeased with the last part of Mr. Grass’s
Letter, where he assumes to himself & party the Title of proprietors of the Land in Question, and says they first found out and planned the settlement.”120 Governor Haldimand made clear that
Michael Grass was forbidden from assuming the title of proprietor and thoroughly denied him the claim of being the “founder.”
According to Haldimand, Grass’s sentiments were “as expressive of Ignorance as presumption.”121 The Letter continued by stating, “it is well known that that part of the neighbouring County was intended and in forwardness for the Reception of the loyalists”122 making clear that Grass was not the first person to have pointed to Cataraqui as a suitable location for settlement by Loyalists. Major Mathews ended the letter by stating, “Mr. Grass should therefore think himself very well off… …if he expects anything beyond that he will be disappointed.” 123
The colonial authorities adamantly objected to the idea of Grass presenting himself as the founder of the settlement at Cataraqui and reminded him of Governor Haldimand’s extensive efforts to prepare the refugee’s asylum.
Major Mathews also saw fit to write a letter directly to Michael Grass himself the very same day, on 15 April 1784. Mathews’s letter echoed the previous one and begins, “I am also commanded by His Excellency to set you Right upon another part of your letter wherein you have assumed to yourself & followers the Title of Proprietors of the Land in Question.”124 Having reiterated the message of the previous letter, Mathews added that Grass was mistaken for thinking
120 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, April 15, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 212-213. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 124 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Michael Grass,” Quebec, April 15, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 219-220.
that the Cataraqui region was his property after completing Sir Guy Carleton’s mission. Mathews accused Grass of “having conceived an idea of Right or Property” concerning the land at Cataraqui and concluded that the idea was, “fallacious as presumptuous.”125 Major Mathews could not have been more explicit towards Grass. He was not the proprietor of the land, nor did he hold any special title over it. Even as the leader of the eight Companies of Associated Loyalists, Grass was forbidden from laying special claim to the land.
Just as Michael Grass was being scolded by the military authorities, it appears that another officer corrected the pompous claims made by Grass. In a letter dated 19 April 1784, Captain
Barnes informed Mathews that he “explained to Mr. Grass how much mistaken he was in supposing himself the first person who found out Cataraqui as a settlement.”126 The pointed remark by Barnes later forced Michael Grass to somewhat qualify his claim by adding that he meant he was the first Loyalist to have pointed to Cataraqui as a suitable place to settle, and that he did not mean to insult His Majesty.
Based on the archival evidence of the Loyalist migration to Cataraqui in 1784, we can conclude that Michael Grass did not play as large of a role as claimed by the legend. The assertion that Grass was the first person to have pointed out that Cataraqui was a suitable place to settle is undone in light of the arrangements made at the exact same time by Governor Haldimand in May
1783. The legend also claims that Grass was the principal actor in the establishment of the settlement, but men like Governor Haldimand and Major Ross contributed to the construction of the British settlement in a more meaningful sense that Grass did, and for much longer. The Legend
125 Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Michael Grass,” Quebec, April 15, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 219-220. 126 John Barnes, “John Barnes to Robert Mathews,” Sorel, April 19, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 148, p. 158.
of Captain Michael Grass ignores all of the contributions made by the colonial authorities, who, for all intents and purposes, were the people who really facilitated the settlement at Cataraqui.
Governor Haldimand had provided food, shelter, and clothing for the refugee Loyalists at
Sorel and prepared Cataraqui for the reception of the Loyalists by constructing barracks, mills, and houses. Furthermore, Haldimand also organised the purchase of the Mississauga’s land which enabled the Loyalists to settle at Cataraqui in the first place. Haldimand had organised all of the vital arrangements independently of Michael Grass, and often did so on his own initiative without the guidance of his superiors in Great Britain. Instead, Haldimand was forced to rely on his own judgement in order to balance the needs of the refugee Loyalists and his strained financial resources.
The Legend of Captain Michael Grass presents the idea that the Loyalist in question took on the leading role in the construction of the settlement at Cataraqui and occupied an important position of authority. Grass’s captain’s commission was a constant source of doubt for the colonial authorities, who consistently referred to him as ‘Mr. Grass’ which denied the level of authority associated with a captaincy. When Michael did try to assert his authority through the creation of the petition to Haldimand it was categorically denied. Haldimand took extra care in informing
Grass that a representational government would not be forthcoming. Grass’s authority was even doubted when he brought charges against Peter Van Alstine, who was a well-respected Loyalist leader. The colonial authorities were quite puzzled when Michael Grass publicly denounced Van
Alstine and later scolded him for doing so.
The most compelling pieces of evidence, however, are the letters in which the colonial authorities absolutely denied Michael Grass from presenting himself as the title holder, proprietor of the land, and the founder of the settlement. On numerous occasions, and throughout multiple
letters, the colonial authorities thoroughly and swiftly condemned Grass’s tendency to assume these titles. Thus, Grass was unable to influence the migration in his own vision and was also unable to exert any meaningful influence over the colonial authorities. Michael Grass, based on the archival evidence, played a far more limited role in the Loyalist migration to Cataraqui in 1784 than has been popularised by the legend.
Conclusion
By comparing the Legend of Captain Michael Grass to the archival evidence, it becomes apparent that Grass was not the man whom the legend depicts. The discrepancies in narratives of the Loyalist migration to Cataraqui in 1784 are important because they draw attention to the creation of the settler society fiction of the “founding” of Kingston by Grass. The first person to have initiated the mythologization was unsurprisingly Michael Grass himself. On 10 December
1811, Grass’s letter featured in the Kingston Gazette stated, “I led the loyal band, I pointed out to them the site of their future metropolis.”127 As the settler society at Cataraqui developed, the community looked back to the Loyalist migration and retrospectively christened Michael Grass a hero of that chapter of Upper Canadian history.
The legend itself function as the origin story for the white settlers at Cataraqui. The legend legitimised the dispossession of the local Indigenous Mississauga to make room for the newly arrived settlers, and accounted for the sudden presence of the Loyalists on the north shore of Lake
Ontario. By taking stock in the mythologization of Michael Grass, the Loyalist community justified what we now understand to be an early example of settler colonialism. Thus, myths like the Legend of Captain Michael Grass played an important role in legitimizing settler colonialism
127 Michael Grass, “For the Kingston Gazette,” Kingston Gazette, December 10, 1811.
because they erased the Indigenous presence from the land through “founding” moments, reflecting the logic of elimination at work in Cataraqui.
The transformation of Michael Grass from leader to hero overlooked the rather limited role that Grass actually played in the journey and embellished his level of influence during the migration. The assertion that Michael Grass was the founder of the settlement at Cataraqui is predicated on three mistaken claims; first, that the region was uninhabited; second, that Grass was the first to point to Cataraqui as a suitable place to settle; and third, that Grass was the foremost leader in the creation of the new settlement. The Legend of Captain Michael Grass failed to acknowledge that there were numerous communities at Cataraqui predating the arrival of the
Companies of Associated Loyalists in 1784. Cataraqui had been the site of sustained presence by
Indigenous groups including the Haudenosaunee and the Mississauga, as well as Europeans from including the French and the British. Thus, Michael Grass was not the first person to call Cataraqui home, nor was he even the first European to do so.
The second claim, that Grass was the first to have pointed to Cataraqui as a suitable place to settle, is factually wrong. Governor Haldimand and Grass both independently conceived of plans to settle Companies of Associated Loyalists at Cataraqui by 26 May 1783. Haldimand and Grass, located in Quebec and New York respectively, both set into motion their plans to settle Cataraqui at the same moment which seriously challenges the assertion that Grass was the first to do so.
Later, Haldimand explicitly denied Grass the honours of being known as the “founder” and venomously denounced Grass for presenting himself as the proprietor of Cataraqui. Furthermore, the colonial authorities actively prevented Michael Grass from exerting any real influence on the development of the settlement resulting in his diminished ability to shape Cataraqui in his own vision.
Finally, a year before Michael Grass arrived at Cataraqui with the eight Companies of
Associated Loyalists in tow, British agents had already begun preparing the region for the reception of the refugees by erecting barracks, constructing houses, providing mills, attracting merchants, and by rebuilding the old French fortifications. All things considered, by the time the
Companies of Associated Loyalists arrived in 1784, Cataraqui already possessed the basic characteristics of a settlement. The understanding of Michael Grass based on archival evidence bears little resemblance to the man as he is presented in the legend. In fact, Grass played a far more limited role in the migration while the colonial authorities arranged for nearly all aspects of the settlement project. The result of the comparative analysis between the Legend of Captain Michael
Grass and the archival evidence is that there is a considerable amount of discrepancy between the mythologized version of Grass and his actual role in the migration. Despite the discrepancies between the archival evidence and the myth, Grass continues to be celebrated as the founder of
Kingston. With numerous plaques and monuments dotting Kingston’s commemorative colonial landscape, Michael Grass is remembered as being the principal actor during the 1784 migration.
By celebrating Michael Grass as the founder of Kingston, creating a “founding moment” for the community, the emerging Upper Canadian settler society effectively eliminated Indigenous ties to the land while also accounting for their sudden occupation of the north shore of Lake
Ontario. The Legend of Captain Michael Grass is one part of the larger project of constructing colonial pasts in Upper Canada which celebrated the imperial expansion of the British Empire throughout the Great Lakes region. Considering this, Michael Grass and the Companies of
Associated Loyalists can be seen as tools of imperial expansion and security. Their relocation to
Cataraqui by the colonial authorities was one method of dispossessing the local Indigenous population from their land, while also consolidating British control over the region in the 1780s.
Bibliography
Archival Sources Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry, Plan du Fort Frontenac ou Cataracouy [Maps/Atlases], Scale [ca. 1:332], 1720.
John Barnes, “John Barnes to Robert Mathews,” Sorel, April 19, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 148, p. 158.
Michael Grass, “Those Loyalists,” Royal American Gazette, May 26, 1783.
Michael Grass, “For the Kingston Gazette,” Kingston Gazette, December 10, 1811.
Michael Grass, “Michael Grass to Lord Dorchester Sir Guy Carleton,” December 3, 1789.
Michael Grass, “The Petition of His Majesty’s Faithful Emigrated Under the Conduct of Captain Michael Grass from New York to this Place,” Sorel, January 1784. n.d. Haldimand Papers Mss B 165 p.143.
Michael Grass, “The Claim of Captain Michael Grass Against the American Government,” PACMG 14 AO 13, Claims, American Loyalists, Series II, Vol. 13, p. 118.
Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, March 2, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 109-110.
Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Stephen De Lancey,” Quebec, April 15, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 212-213.
Robert Mathews, “Robert Mathews to Michael Grass,” Quebec, April 15, 1784. Haldimand Papers Mss B 63 pp. 219-220.
Roppenheim – Parish Register (Before 1793) – Protestant Parish (Before 1793) – Baptism registers 1688-1746 – 3 E 409/1. Page 101. Departmental Council of Bas-Rhin.
Sir Guy Carleton, “Sir Guy Carleton to Sir Frederick Haldimand,” New York City, June 4, 1783. PAC Haldimand Mcc B 148 p. 147.
Sir Guy Carleton, “Sir Guy Carleton to Sir Frederick Haldimand,” New York City, June 5, 1783. PAC Haldimand Mcc B 148 p. 148.
Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Samuel Holland,” Quebec, May 26, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 124 pp. 88-89.
Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Sir Guy Carleton,” Quebec, July 7, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 148 pp. 161-162.
Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to John Collins,” Quebec, September 11, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 124 pp. 91-94.
Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Lord North,” Quebec, August 27, 1783. Haldimand Papers Mss B 56 p. 132.
Sir Frederick Haldimand, “Sir Frederick Haldimand to Lord North,” Quebec, November 6, 1783. PAC Haldimand Q 23, p 5.
Printed Sources Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. New York: Vintage, 2001.
Bradley, A.G. Sir Guy Carleton (Lord Dorchester). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966.
Canniff, William. History of the Settlement of Upper Canada, (Ontario) with Special Reference to the Bay of Quinté .Toronto: Dudley & Burns, 1869.
Cruikshank, E.A. The Settlement of the United Empire Loyalist on the Upper St. Lawrence and Bay of Quinte in 1784: A Document Record. Toronto: Ontario Historical Society, 1934.
Dupré, Céline. “ROYBON D’ALLONNE, MADELEINE DE.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol 2, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
Eid, Leroy V. “The Ojibwa-Iroquois Wars: The War the Five Nations Did Not Win.” Ethnohistory 26. No. 4 (1979): 297-315.
Errington, Jane. The Lion, Eagles, and Upper Canada: A Developing Colonial Ideology. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2012.
French, G.S. “RICHARDSON, JAMES (1791-1875).” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 10, University of Toronto/ Université Laval, 2003.
Graymont, Barbara. “KOÑWATSITSUAUÉÑNI (Mary Brant).” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 4, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
Graymont, Barbara. “THAYENDANEGEA.” In Dictionary of Canada Biography, vol. 5, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
Greer, Allan. “Settler Colonialism and Empire in Early America.” William and Mary Quarterly 76, no. 3 (July 2019): 383-390.
Gwyn, Julian. “JOHNSON, Sir WILLIAM.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 4, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
Hayward, Robert J. “COLLINS, JOHN (d. 1795). In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol 4, University of Toronto/ Université Laval, 2003.
Knittle, Walter Allan. Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration: A British Government Redemptioner Project to Manufacture Naval Stores. Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company, 1937.
Knowles, Norman. Inventing the Loyalists: The Ontario Loyalist Tradition & the Creation of Usable Pasts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.
MacDougall, Heather. “CANNIFF, WILLIAM.” In Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 13, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
McIlwraith, Jean N. Sir Frederick Haldimand. Toronto: Morgan & Co. Limited, 1904.
Morgan, Cecilia. Creating Pasts: History, Memory, and Commemoration in Southern Ontario, 1860-1980. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015.
Otterness, Philip. “The 1709 Palatine Migration and the Formation of German Immigrant Identity in London and New York.” Pennsylvania History 66, (1999): 8-23.
Paxton, James. Joseph Brant and His World: Eighteenth-Century Statesman and Warrior. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1984.
Pioneer Life on the Bay of Quinte, Including Genealogies of Old Families and Biographical Sketches of Representative Citizens. Toronto: Ralph and Clark, 1904.
Preston, R.A. Kingston Before the War of 1812: A Collection of Documents. Toronto: Champlain Society, 2013.
Reimer, Gwen. “British-Canada’s land Purchases, 1783-1788: A Strategic Perspective.” Ontario History 11, no 1 (Spring 2019): 36-72.
Schmalz, Peter S. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.
Smith, Donald B. “The Dispossession of the Mississauga Indians: A Missing Chapter in the Early History of Upper Canada.” In Historical Essays on Upper Canada: New Perspectives, edited by J.K. Johnson and Bruce G. Wilson, 23-79. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989.
Strassburger, Ralph Beaver. Pennsylvania German Pioneers, A Publication of the Original Lists of Arrivals in the Port of Philadelphia form 1727 to 1808. Binghamton: Vail-Ballou Press, 1934.
Turner, Larry. Voyage of a Different Kind: The Associated Loyalists of Kingston and Adolphustown. Belleville: Mika Publishing, 1984.
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 387-409.
Wolfe, Patrick. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. New York: Cassell, 1999.