IN BUT NOT OF THE REVOLUTION: LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND THE BRITISH OCCUPATION OF PHILADELPHIA A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Aaron Sullivan May 2014 Examining Committee Members: David Waldstreicher, Advisory Chair, Department of History Susan Klepp, Department of History Gregory Urwin, Department of History Judith Van Buskirk, External Member, SUNY Cortland © Copyright 2014 by Aaron Sullivan All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT A significant number of Pennsylvanians were not, in any meaningful sense, either revolutionaries or loyalists during the American War for Independence. Rather, they were disaffected from both sides in the imperial dispute, preferring, when possible, to avoid engagement with the Revolution altogether. The British Occupation of Philadelphia in 1777 and 1778 laid bare the extent of this popular disengagement and disinterest, as well as the dire lengths to which the Patriots would go to maintain the appearance of popular unity. Driven by a republican ideology that relied on popular consent in order to legitimate their new governments, American Patriots grew increasingly hostile, intolerant, and coercive toward those who refused to express their support for independence. By eliminating the revolutionaries’ monopoly on military force in the region, the occupation triggered a crisis for the Patriots as they saw popular support evaporate. The result was a vicious cycle of increasing alienation as the revolutionaries embraced ever more brutal measures in attempts to secure the political acquiescence and material assistance of an increasingly disaffected population. The British withdrawal in 1778, by abandoning the region’s few true loyalists and leaving many convinced that American Independence was now inevitable, shattered what little loyalism remained in the region and left the revolutionaries secure in their control of the state. In time, this allowed them to take a more lenient view of disaffection and move toward modern interpretations of silence as acquiescence and consent for the established government. iii For Grace, with faith, hope, and much love. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manuscript could not have been completed without the extensive and gracious assistance of many individuals and institutions. First and foremost, I must thank my advisor, Professor David Waldstreicher, who has supported me in innumerable ways throughout my time at Temple. His insight, thoughtful criticism, humor, excitement, and ceaseless encouragement have refined my scholarship and upheld my spirits in the face of weariness, uncertainty, and self-doubt. I am also tremendously indebted to the other members of my dissertation committee, Professors Susan E. Klepp, Gregory J. W. Urwin, and Judith L. Van Buskirk, who have generously been continuing sources of both guidance and affirmation. I also owe particular thanks to Professor Michael A. McDonnell who, without any obligation or compensation, has been kind enough to read and comment upon nearly the entirety this manuscript and has constantly challenged my thinking and pushed me forward. The libraries and archives where I conducted my research have invariably been welcoming and helpful. I am particularly grateful to the staffs of the David Library of the American Revolution and the William L. Clements Library. In addition to their invaluable archival sources, these institutions provided me with financial support and much personal kindness; the latter was especially appreciated in the midst of extended research trips far from home. In addition to these libraries, I am indebted to numerous groups and institutions for their material support. The American Council of Learned Societies has been especially generous. I also owe thanks to the Pennsylvania State Society chapter of the v Daughters of the American Colonists, the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University, and the Scherer Center for the Study of American Culture. Countless other scholars and interested parties have been kind enough to listen to and comment upon various facets of this project. For providing a venue for such exchanges, I am indebted to the Organization of American Historians, The McNeil Center of Early American Studies, The Pennsylvania Historical Association, the staff at Fort Ticonderoga, the American Revolutionary Roundtable of Philadelphia, and The James A. Barnes Club at Temple University. I cannot say enough to thank those who have sacrificed their time and energy to keep the rest of my life from falling apart over the past several years while this manuscript was being composed. A complete list would be impractical, but I must particularly say ‘thank you’ to Heidi, Christy, and my mother. I close with thanks to the person without whom this project could never have even begun, much less been finished, who believed in me at every step along the way and who, more than any other individual, made this possible. Thank you, Sarah. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION THE GREAT MIDDLE GROUP OF AMERICANS ............................................ ix CHAPTER 1. A PEOPLE ZEALOUS IN THE CAUSE OF VIRTUE AND LIBERTY ..........1 2. SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT .......................................................................49 3. LIBERTY FOR ALL MUST BE FORCED ON A FEW ..................................88 4. THE JAWS OF A LION ..................................................................................144 5. I NOW LOOK UPON THE CONTEST AS AT AN END .............................213 6. FULLY RECONCILED TO INDEPENDENCY ............................................245 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................282 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................288 vii INTRODUCTION: “THE GREAT MIDDLE GROUP OF AMERICANS” No one can simultaneously serve two masters who are opposed to each other. Anyone who adheres to one party will be hated and persecuted by the other. Anyone who tries to remain neutral and keep on terms with neither or both parties will be oppressed and harassed by both sides when the controversy is pushed so far that proposals of peace are rejected and the matter is to be decided by resort to arms. Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg, November 24, 17771 John Adams tells us that “the real American Revolution” was not the War for Independence that raged across the colonies between 1775 and 1783. Rather, he declared that “the Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.”2 In so doing, he did a great service to historians of the Revolution, reminding us that even in the eighteenth century, victory on the battlefield could not, by itself, create a nation; we dare not imagine that any description of how the War for American Independence was won could ever fully explain the Revolution that created the United States.3 And yet perhaps Adams, never one for half-measures, carried his own ideas a bit too far. For he also declared that the war, far from being the sum total, was in fact “no part of the Revolution; it was only a consequence of it,” and that the real American Revolution was effected “before a drop of 1 Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, The Journals of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania and Adjacent States, 1942), 1:107. 2 John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams, 10 vols. (Boston: Little and Brown, 1850-56), 10:828. 3 Much later, Benedict Anderson taught us that nations are “imagined communities,” and thus truly things of the mind and heart. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983). viii blood was shed at Lexington.”4 As a leader among the revolutionaries, Adams certainly benefited from an interpretation in which the “minds and hearts of the people” had fully and truly been transformed before the blood began flowing, but it seems more likely, both in light of revolutionary history and of human nature, that the events of the war and the bloodshed itself had a deep impact on the thoughts and feelings of America’s inhabitants and profoundly shaped their perception “of their duties and obligations.” Furthermore, even if we find it in the minds of the people rather than on the colonial battlefields, the “real American Revolution” was still a war; the people’s minds, no less than the battlefields, had to be won. In many cases, they had to be conquered. It behooves us, then, to thoughtfully consider the human terrain over which this war was waged and the means by which the revolutionaries achieved their conquest. There has never been a shortage of historical works on the lives of American revolutionaries and the perspective and plight of the American loyalists has recently recaptured the attention of Revolutionary historians and now represents a steadily growing historiography.5 Yet outside