A Prisons
B Repression against Loyalists
C Draft of "Forging consensus"
D Death sentences by court martials
E Low key control of suspected Loyalists
F Number of imprisoned Loyalists
(to be completed)
G South Carolina Loyalists
H Hunting down Loyalists
I Parallel between SC and the Vendee
J British goal in the Brittany landing
K Civil war features of the Revolution in SC
L Epuration of the Loyalists
M The spiral of retaliations
N List of names of 300 Loyalist victims in SC
O Names of about 4,000 Loyalists in NY state
P Evolution of desertion (1776-1782)

Introduction

It has often been said that, apart from the military aspect consisting in the war against the British, there was also a civil war facet consisting in the conflict between Patriots and Loyalists. For historians who wish to get an understanding which goes beyond the enumeration of battles and skirmishes the purely military features are not the most interesting because they mainly follow the rules of warfare of that time: How many guns, cavalry and infantry on each side? How to manage the procurement of powder, shells, carriages, food, uniforms? How to recruit and pay the troops? How to reduce desertions both in the militia and in the Continental Army. All European countries in their endless wars were confronted to these same challenges.

The last question is of course strongly connected with the civil war aspects. Each side tried to recruit troops and to identify the spies and recruiting officers sent by the other side. Why do we think that these aspects need to be studied more fully and more systematically? This is particularly true for the judiciary aspects, i.e. number of civilians in custody, number of trials, number of bannishments, number of death sentences, number of pardons and of executions.

It is the lack of global official judiciary data which makes the task of historians exceedingly difficult. For the French Revolution there are official data of the number of people arrested, tried, sentenced, executed. For instance, in a book by Donald Greer there is a map of France with the numbers of executions in each departement. It appears clearly that these numbers are strongly correlated with the insurrections of Royalists, the latter being supported by France's neighbors and particularly by England; see on the map the region around Toulon in the south and the region of the Vendee in the west and see also our discussion below about the landing in Brittany.

In the Thirteen colonies there are no official data whatsoever. Even for important data such as sentences of civil courts or court martials, no annual data were published. In contrast the British have recorded data of the number of prisoners of war which allowed American historians to estimate the number of fatalities on prison ships. Prison ships have also existed on the Patriot side but for them we do not have any data and therefore no death rates can be estimated.

In several states suspected Loyalists were given the choice between taking the oath of allegeance or staying in prison until a possible trial several months later. Only the richest Loyalists could afford to pay 100 or 200 dollars (or even more) for their bond.

Naturally, nobody would expect the numbers of executions in America to be in any way comparable to those of the year 1793 (called Terror time) in France. To begin with, there are two major differences.
(i) Firstly, there was a great difference in population: some 20 millions in France against some 2 millions (without the slaves) in America.
(ii) Secondly, whereas in France religion was a major factor of division within the French population, in America almost all Angican ministers were Loyalists In other words, religion was not an additional factor of division.

These are certainly important aspects but it seems that in many cases the relevant data were lost. For instance, we were told by archivists that in New York state there are no remaining archives for the sessions of the court of Oyer and Terminer (a court particularly in charge of state trials). Often existing series stop in 1776: that is the case of the "American Archives" collected and published by Peter Force. In Demond (1940,p.262) one reeds: "The state of North Carolina is almost destitute of source material for the period of the Revolution after 1776 except for that found in the Colonial and State Records.

So far we have under our eyes what can be called a "patchwork" picture of the conflict between Patriots and Loyalists. We use this word not only because most of the studies are at state level but even at that level one rarely finds data for key variables (e.g. numbers of prisoners or of trials) that can be considered as global state level estimates.

Summary
With respect to historiography the situation can be summarized as follows.

In terms of increasing accuracy there are three levels of description.
(a) Minimal anecdotal description.
(b) Exhaustive anecdotal description.
(c) Global description based on reliable global data.

Let us illustrate these three levels through a few examples.

We have already mentioned the issue of describing mob violence. (a) would consist in describing 3 or 4 events. (b) would consist in recording ALL episodes of mob violence at least in a limited area. Newspapers are the most common source. In (c) the events of mob violence are recorded by police or other state agencies (e.g. in present days, the FBI)

In his history of the Loyalists in South Carolina Demond (1964) has a chapter entitled "Suffering of the Loyalists. He uses the patchwork method described in (a). He is well aware that this method is not satisfactory for he tells his reader (p.119): "Throughout the latter part of the war the district courts were most active in indicting the Tories for treason and an indictment usually resulted in conviction." An account based on all these trials would be close to the (b) level. Certainly Demond would have tried this way if transcribed records had been available. Later on in the book, Demond repeats the same plea (p.152). "In 1782 when Faning [a loyalist leader] saw his followers convicted of treason and hanged, in retaliation he put to death his prisoners". However, this statement is not supported by a single case. How then does Demond know about that?

Here our plan is to present those judicial data that we can find and to attract attention on existing gaps. Our study will be focused on few aspects but whenever possible we try to propose a fairly comprehensive and systematic view.

This is a plan which is neither easy nor comfortable. It is not easy because usually the data that we need are not available. It is not comfortable in the sense that we will have to harvest our cases one by one with in addition the unpleasant conviction that many additional cases will not be caught in our net.

For instance it will take us much time and effort to make a list of Loyalists who were executed whereas that information should have been collected by the Ministry of Justice or, in the case of court martials, by General Washington's headquarters.

To explain what we have in mind, let us consider the question of the mob violence against Loyalists or officials of the British government. It is known to have occurred repeatedly in northern colonies and in fact it started well ahead of the American Revolution.

Usually, historians limit themselves to the description of a few cases. Clearly, in this way one cannot get an idea of what it implied. There is a world between isolated attacks occurring say once a month and relentless attacks several times a week. In the first case it may be just an expression of popular discontent in the form of practical jokes, whereas in the second it would create an atmosphere of terror among the persons who are targeted. An historical parallel would be the attacks against opponents in fascist Italy. In other words, depending on the frequency, the picture changes completely. The same observation holds also for many other types of events. For instance, desertions do not attract much attention unless they reach a degree which threatens the very fighting capability of the army.

It is well known that there were collective trials of Loyalists suspected of siding with the enemy. Courts of Oyer and Terminer which had been commonly used in the British judicial system for the trials of state prisoners had the same function in the thirteen colonies and, after 1776, in the young republic.

There is so far no agreement among American historians as to the frequency of such trials. Some hold that they were rare, others describe a substantial set of cases but add that anyway after being sentenced all defendants were pardoned, especially when they had been sentenced to death. A third group of scholars wonders if the cases already known is not just the tip of a large iceberg.

What makes such a study challenging is the fact that so far judicial archives have been largely neglected by historians, precisely perhaps because the question of dissent was somewhat sidelined. If you search the index pages of classical accounts of the Revolution you will not often find the entry "Treason trials" or "Oyer and Terminate courts".

This can be seen fairly clearly in the archives of Virginia. Whereas in 1778-1779 one sees almost only issues concerning military procurement, in the early 1780s the part devoted to treason trials surged. Probably there were also treason trials earlier but they did not find their way into the records kept in county or state archives.

In the following documents we try to shed some light on these issues. The specific questions on which we will focus were selected because we were able to find appropriate data. In other words, our investigation was driven by data availability.

A Prisons

The first document is a list of 50 prisons in use in the 13 colonies.
List of 50 prisons

Why is such a list important?
Jailing suspicious characters was the easiest and most common way to get rid of the threat they may have represented. Depending upon the outrage, it could be for a term of one, six, nine, 12 months or more. In practice the term was conditioned by the ability of the person to provide a security, that is to say a guaranty in the form of a sum of money. Often it was a joint guaranty in the sense that a part of the money was provided by a friend.

Thus, if they were available, data giving the total population of inmates would represent useful estimates of the strength of the Loyalist population. Unfortunately, almost no jail occupation data have been transcribed and published in the vast movement that took place in the second half of the 19th century when the 13 states funded the printing and publication of many historical documents. Prisoners of war have attracted much attention but state prisoners did not. Naturally, it is understandable that the very notion that there were state prisoners, whose only crime was to be faithful to their king, was perhaps not palatable for a nation in which freedom is so highly praised.

B Repression against Loyalists

In the same line of thought it is hardly surprising that in American historiography the repression against Loyalists is belittled or overlooked. In this section we present two documents which illustrate this bias. The first document is a 3-page article (p.40-42) published in the "Canadian Loyalist Gazette".
Elusive Loyalists (p.40-42)

Incidentally, it is worthwhile to notice that the illustrations were chosen by the publisher of the Gazette, not by the authors. The picture on the top of p.41 represents a person (meant to be a Loyalist) hanging from a tree. At first sight this appears to be in contradiction with the common view that mob violence did not result in any death of Loyalists. Here, the fact that the person is hanging from a tree obviously refers to mob violence because in a lawful execution there would be a gallow. However, this picture can be found on Internet and there it has a caption that says that it is not a person but an effigy. It was indeed common to express hostility against someone by hanging his effigy.

Yet, that is not the end of the story because in Moore (1860,p359) there is an episode in which a dissident minister is hanged by a mob. The account gives fairly detailed information. The location is Charleston, the date is 1 December 1776, the name is John Roberts. However the primary source remains unclear. The following article is an extended version of the previous paper.
Mass-trials, sentences and pardons

C Draft of "Forging consensus"

The following document (220 p.)
Forging consensus. The American Revolution in Loyalist perspective
contains a very provisional version of the manuscript of a book in which the American Revolution is considered from a Loyalist perspective.

It contains also an investigation of the fate of Union citizens in the Civil War who were in favor of a negotiated peace with the Confederation. Like the Loyalists, these people were considered as domestic enemies and often accused of treason.
As a third case we consider also the fate of the persons (often German immigrates) who did not wish the United States to take part in the First World War.
The fight against communism provides still another example of how to eliminate dissenters. This part has yet to be written.

All these cases illustrate policies aimed at forging consensus. Below we indicate a number of issues considered in the manuscript. Once we have received some feedback the manuscript will be completely rewritten. Sorry for its present "untidy" shape.

What makes the American Revolution unique
The Quakers in the Revolution
Former uprisings in several of the thirteen colonies
Tar-and-feather episodes
British judges and officials left at the mercy of the mobs
Imprisonments
Death sentences and executions
Identification of pardons

List of executions (p.78) with indication of: Name, Date of execution, State, Source.
The numbers per year are as follows (provisional): 1776:1 1777:51 1778:50 1779:58 1780:56 1781:38 1782:20 1783:2
Total for 1776-1783: 276 executions

Court martial sentences
Acts of attainder and their consequences
Putting New York afire

Elusive consensus in the Civil War
The draft uprising in New York

Consensus forging in the First World War
During the war confiscation of German assets in America

References: archives, books, articles
Appendix: Civilian Patriots against Loyalists (based on Peter Force)

D Death sentences by court martials

The following file contains accounts of court-martials in the Continental army. The source is a database and search engine for letters exchanged by the Founders of the young republic. It contains also "General orders" issued at Washington's headquarters. This database was set up by the National Archives and the Library of Congress. The present compilation is a very provisional version. It can be noted that the army had also local headquarters at state level or for theaters of war comprising several states. Pardons (or reprievels) could be issued by General Washington but also by field Major Generals, particularly after 1778.

Death sentences issued by court-martials

E Low key control of suspected Loyalists

How did Patriot investigations by various committees impact the daily life of American citizens? Note that here we do not restrict the question to avowed Loyalists for it will be seen that even citizens who wanted to stay "neutral" were ordered to appear before the committees for questioning.

For historians the challenge is to find a source describing the daily interaction between the population and the investigations conducted by the Patriots. Here the important word is "daily". The records of the various committees give some information about their work but most often what is reported is a selection of the activity of the committee. Incidentally the term "minutes" that appears in the titles of such archives is a misnomer for they are rather summaries.

However what we are looking for seems to exist in the archives of Albany county. Victor Hugo Palsits, the scholar who edited these archives, tells us in his introduction that in all other counties of New York State such archives may have existed but were lost or destroyed. His own words are as follows.
It is well-nigh inexplicable that so little remains of the vast amount of minutes and related records of this State body, existent in 7 counties and operative during about 5 years of the war. The several boards were obligated by statute to keep accurate minutes of all of their proceedings, subject to review by higher authority.

For Albany county there are 4 volumes totaling 1,071 pages. The first two cover the period: 17 Oct 1776 - 12 Oct 1777 whereas the last two cover: 15 Apr 1778 - 13 Aug 1781.

The information provided by these volumes was compiled and arranged into a standardized form comprising the following columns:
(FAMILY-NAME Given-name) page (month-year) Event description
These standardized events can be found in the following files:
First Commission, vol.1

First Commission, vol.2

Commissionners, vol.1

Commissionners, vol.2

This standardization will enable us to count the interactions between the Committee and the citizens and to see its evolution in the course of time. It will be seen that altogether in Albany County almost 50% of adult males came in contact with the Committee for one reason or another.
Sometimes, after being arrested for no other reason than the complaint of a neighbor, they were released after one or two days; of course after having taken the oath and having given security. Usually, those who did not wish to take the oath were imprisoned until they were willing to take it. These individuals can be labelled as being real Loyalists.

As more and more Loyalists were imprisoned, moved to New York or went abroad one would of course expect the "density" of Loyalists in the free population to decline and this is indeed what is observed. The number of monthly "collisions" decreases from 170 in 1776 to about 50 in 1780. Note however that there is a bias in the sense that in the course of the war the conflict moved from the northern states to the south. If a similar study could be done in the south it might reveal an increase rather than a decrease.

Naturally, it is not surprising that the events occuring in Albany County also reflect the major events of the conflict. A clear illustration is the fact that in Oct 1776 some 120 prisoners were sent from New York State to the town Exeter in the state of New Hampshire. This suggests that Exeter had a prisoner camp with a high capacity.

F Number of imprisoned Loyalists

Estimate of the number of imprisoned individuals derived from Loyalist compensation claims

As already observed despite the fact that there were over 50 prisons in the northern states (see above) almost no prisoner list records are available. As there were town jails, county gaols and provincial prisons such archives should be available at various levels. It is possible that lists of prisoners are still hidden in the archives just waiting for historians to get interested in them. An alternative explanation would be that, for some reason, they were destroyed. Actually, the two explanations do not exclude each other. Lists of prisoners (or merely counts) would constitute direct evidence. Lacking that one needs to resort to indirect evidence. Such an attempt was conducted in the following paper by one of the few American historians who took interest in this issue:

O'Keefe (K.J.) 2021: Mass incarceration as Revolutionary policy: the imprisonment of Hudson Valley Loyalists. Early American Studies pp.495-527.

Here we try another method in order to see if it leads us to an estimate that is consistent with the result obtained by Prof. O'Keefe.

During and after the war, many individuals who had been denounced as "having assisted the enemies" became refugees who settled abroad. Starting in May 1778, long lists of suspected Loyalists had been published. In Pennsylvania, for instance, they comprised nearly 500 names. More details can be found in the "Forging consensus" manuscript mentioned above.

Among these refugees those who felt that they they had really been faithful Loyalists (and could prove it) presented demands to the British Claim Commission. A compilation of many (but not all) of these claims was published in 1980 in the following book:
Coldham (P.W.) 1980: American Loyalist claims. National Genealogical Society, Washington D.C. (616p.)
The main part of these claims consists in an enumeration of forfeited property and confiscated estates. However, the accounts also shortly mention possible stays in prison as proofs of Loyalist status. By counting the number of imprisonment mentions it becomes possible to estimate the number of imprisoned Loyalists.

G South Carolina Loyalists

Needless to say, even before independence, the Loyalists in northern states were submitted to considerable pressure. Many cases are reported of Loyalists being pushed to departure by mob violence.

Then, in the face of a threatening British invasion but before the city was duly occupied, it made sense to remove from New York all those suspected of being "disaffected". In the following months all farmers whose property was considered too easily accessible by sea were relocated farther away from the seaside.

The same scenario was repeated when British forces threatened and eventually invaded Philadelphia, then the largest American city.

What then made the invasion of South Carolina so different? Many answers could be proposed but one obvious difference is that in the north the British troops remained confined in the cities and did not try to support the Loyalists in the few counties surrounding New York (or Philadelphia) where they were a majority.

In SC, on the contrary, the British and Loyalist troops tried to hold the whole state. In order to ensure local visibility they needed to create militia companies formed of Loyalists. Thanks to the presence of their troops not far away the British could enlist even reluctant Loyalists. In the north, recruiters were also sent from New York to neighboring counties, but in SC this was done on a much larger scale and that is how the confrontation really became a civil war. For instance, we are told that at the battle of Kings Mountain (7 Oct 1780) there were only few British troops, most of the fighting force consisted in Loyalists. The same observation holds for the battle of Kettle Creek (14 Feb 1779).

Nothing similar can be seen in the north for the obvious reason that it took time to organize, arm and train companies of Loyalists. In short, from a military perspective, in northern states the Loyalists were never a real threat.

Between 1775 and 1779 there were already SC Loyalists but they were weak and exposed to Patriot repression. With the perspective of the arrival of British forces (including Loyalist regiments) by sea as well as by land, the perspective changed completely.

A parallel with the French Revolution may be useful. In 1792 the first violent protests in the region of Vendee were triggered by the introduction of conscription which itself was in response to Prussian and Austrian armies threatening the north east of France.

At that point the situation was still manageable. Protests against conscription are not something unusual. After all, the protesters had no cannons and probably only few (fairly outdated) guns. The situation changed completely when, thanks to English support, the protesters got weapons and were able to form military units led by experienced officers from the nobility. In addition, the British fleet was never far away allowing English occupation of a number of offshore places (e.g. Noirmoutier, Belle Ile) and threatening to land an expeditionary force of rebels, which indeed happened in June 1795. (see below).

H Hunting down Loyalists

Hunting down Loyalists in South Carolina: the logic which led to the treason trials

According to present knowledge, there have been only relatively few treason trials in the northern states. A number of them were listed and described earlier. We made a distinction between civilian courts and court martials. Following British rules, treason trials were tried at courts of Oyer and Terminer (O&T). There were courts of O&T in Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. In the other states there were similar courts, e.g. Supreme Courts of Judicature or Courts of General Session.

It seems that almost all the archives of the courts of O&T have disappeared. An archivist of the New York state archives told us: "The only documents produced by Courts of O&T were minute books and none survived for the period of the Revolution (1775-1782)". We got similar answers in several other states.

I Parallel between SC and the Vendee

Drawing a parallel between the war in the Vendee (1792-1793 and 1795) and the war of independence in South Carolina is not absurd for the following reasons.

(1) Militarily, the big event was the landing of June 1795 in Quiberon which involved some 26,000 troops on each side; this was a close parallel of the invasion of Charleston Moreover, this action was preceded by the Vendee guerrilla warfare which was similar, albeit less violent, to the repression against the SC Loyalists in the years 1775-1779.

(2) In SC the landmark event was the siege and taking of Charleston by the British in May 1780. It involved some 6,000 troops on each side.

The British invasion of Quiberon in Brittany consisted in two successive landings separated by an interval of one week. A description of the landing force gives an idea of its strength. Consisting in 60 transport ships protected by 9 warships, it brought military equipment for about twice as many soldiers than those on board. The intent was to deliver this equipment to the insurgents who would join the rebellion after its first victories.

(3) In SC to change allegiance was not uncommon, both among the population and among the troops. This raised the question of whether someone should be seen as a Patriot, a Loyalist, a traitor or a POW. It is known that hundreds of defeated troops were tried by makeshift Patriot courts and that a number of them were sentenced and hanged.

The defeat of the expeditionary force in Quiberon raised the same question. Apart from the Royalist emigres, French soldiers held as prisoners of war in England had been incorporated into the invading force. After its defeat they could have been treated as traitors but in fact most were pardoned. Many of the Royalist emigres were taken back to England by the fleet but for those who became prisoners, it was another matter. Some 300 of them were tried as traitors, sentenced and executed by firing squads. At that time such a move was not unusual as attested by the similarly bloody repressions which followed the Monmouth rebellion in 1685 (after the defeat at Sedgemoor) or the Jacobite rebellion in 1746 (after the defeat at Culloden).

J British goal in the Brittany landing

Contrary to superficial accounts, the primary purpose of the landing of a British expedionary force in the south of Brittany was not just to help the Royalists and Chouans (i.e. disaffected). The real goal was to trigger a mass insurrection which would take the city of Rennes and occupy the north-western part of France. That, it was hoped, would bring down the Republican government and permit the return to power of Louis XVIII. This thesis is confirmed by the fact that the 60 transport ships brought equipment for many more soldiers than those taking part in the landing, for instance 60,000 shoes, 35,000 muskets, 17,000 infantry uniforms and 5000 cavalry uniforms (Champagnac 1989) Another indication in the same direction is the participation of British troops. Three infantry regiments (90th, 19th, 27th) representing some 4,000 troops were on board with the first wave, although it does not seem that they took part in the action. Had the action in south Brittany been successful, the plan was to make a second landing with 10,000 British troops in north Brittany in the intention of taking the port of Saint Malo.

K Civil war features of the Revolution in South Carolina

It is often said that in South Carolina the conflict between Patriots and Loyalists took the form of a civil war. However in historical accounts one finds only few facts which support this assertion. One key feature of SC was the the existence of a fairly strong minority of Loyalists which, quite naturally, was amplified by the British occupation of Charleston. A comparison with Massachusetts may be useful because in contrast this state had one of the weakest Loyalist population. It is said (see Maas 1989) that only 2% of the adult population refused to sign the Association Act of 1776. Nevertheless in the same book by David Maas there is a chapter entitled: "Legislative efforts to purge the Tories in Boston". This was of course the objective pursued by the Patriots in all states, but a policy which may work against a tiny opposition may not be suitable in states where the Loyalists formed a substantial opposition.

In Massachusetts, one half of the Loyalists departed when the British forces evacuated Boston on 17 March 1776. Yet, as soon as 26 March a list of 85 so-called "inimical" persons was set up and sent to the General Court where 7 justices of the peace would be in charge of interrogating the suspected Loyalists. Their decision would imply release, confined on bond or held in jail until a possible trial that might take place several months later. The threat of being held in prison was real as shown by the fact that of 16 persons brought to trial by the militia in April 1776, 5 (Charles and Miles Whitworth, William Perry, Benjamin Davis, Thomas Edward) were placed in close confinement in Boston jail (Maas p.181). As an example of the verdicts deivered at the trials one can mention the case of William Gardiner who was sentenced to banishment (Maas p.256), a sentence that the legislature changed into one year in jail.

In SC between 1775 and 1778 the Loyalists had suffered under Patriot repression but as soon as British forces (which included regiments of Loyalists) drifted toward the Carolinas the Loyalists started to form local militias. This had two consequences.

(i) It was no longer possible to bring suspected Loyalists to prison or to trial.

(ii) Once armed, Loyalists could oppose force to force.. From a mere police operation, the conflict became a real civil war with the result that the Patriots themselves felt threatened. Fear generated harsher actions.

When taken prisoner armed Loyalists were often summarily executed or tried by "special" courts often composed of officers (as in the trials following the battle of Kings Mountain) but which were not regular court martials.

This trasformation raised also a major difficulty for historians that we explain in the following section.

How to narrate civil wars?

The narration of civil wars raises the same difficulty as already mentioned for mob violence. In a large country like the United States there are at any time incidents in which police officers or federal agents are killed. However, nobody would call that a civil war situation. On the other hand the American Civil War did not immediately start with large battles; at first there were skirmishes. In North and South Carolina the War of Independence consisted in fairly small battles. The fall of Charleston which was certainly the largest involved only some 3,000 Patriots; in addition the attackers were British troops rather than Loyalists. The largest involment of Loyalists was probably at the battle of Kings Mountain. Although it was assuredly an important battle, there were only a few hundred soldiers on each side. Is that enough for calling it a civil war?

Below we examine how well known historians have narrated the civil war aspects of the war in the Southern states. In the book by Robert Demond (1964) on South Carolina there are only two chapters about the L Epuration of the Loyalists

This process of radicalisation was marked by the steps described below

Special court created to try Loyalists

On 20 Feb 1779, reacting to the threatening British invasion, the SC General Assembly passed an Act which gave 40 days to the citizens who had joined the enemy for surrendering unless being liable to the death penalty. Manned by Thomas Heyward and John Mathews, a special court was set up to try all persons charged with sedition. (Lambert p.81)

Execution of spies in Charleston

It seems that the first application of the new law was made during the siege of Charleston. Thanks to the fact that Thomas Heyward was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence its biography can be found on Internet and there we read that he presided at the trial and condemnation of some Loyalists charged with treasonable correspondance with the enemy. They were executed in sight of the enemy lines. The biographty does not tell us how many were hanged nor does it give the date(s) of the hangings.

Somewhat independently one learns that on 17 March 1779 also in Charlestown William Tweed and Andrew Groundwater were hanged. Was their trial part of those presided by judge Heyward?

Trial and executions at Ninety Six

Robert Lambert (p.83) tells us that in March 1780 no less than 150 prisoners were waiting for their trial by the newly created special court. A number of them were Loyalists taken prisoners at the battle of Kettle Creek in Georgia and who had been marched in chains to Augusta, a distance of about 200km. The information available about the trial is quite sketchy. There was a clerk (we even know his name) but the records did not survive. The trial lasted 21 days from 22 March 1779 to 12 April which means that on average 20 persons were tried daily (including on Sundays). Eventually, all except 5 were released or reprieved in the sense that if caught a second time on the British side they would be executed immediately.

It turns out that holding trials at Ninety Six was not uncommon. It was a village of only few houses but which had a jail ans a courthouse. According to Robert Davis (p.175), in 1778 there had been trials of Loyalists and "at least one execution, that of a man named Allen". One suspects that such a cryptic sentence does not rely on an appropriate primary source for otherwise more information would be available (date, complete name of the; person named Allen.

Other trials of Loyalists were held in Salisbury, North Carolina on 15 Sept 1779 (Davis p.180). We are told that several [how many?] Loyalists were sentenced to death and that all were granted reprieve except two, namely Captain Samuel Richardson and Lieutenant William Armstrong who were hanged on (or around) 5 November 1779.

Summary trial and executions after the Patriot victory at Kings Mountain

Following the American victory at Kings Mountain against a militia of Loyalists, there was a summary trial in which 30 were sentenced to be hanged but only 9 were actually executed.

Death march after the Patriot victory at Kings Mountain The executions are reported in all accounts. In contrast the march which followed did not attract the attention of historians to the same degree. It can be called a death march for according to the testimony of Anthony Allaire, a British Lieutenant, those who were unable "to keep up were trodden to death in the mire". How many died is not revealed. One should remember that there were some 700 prisoners and that many of them had been injured in the fighting. Including the distance covered in the two days between the battle and the trial the prisoners had to march about 100km. The number of deaths during the march may have surpassed the number of those who were executed but as no data were recorded or kept we will never know.

As a matter of comparison one can consider the "Bataan Death March" in April 1942 for this is a case for which there are data. Some 60,000 Filipino and 15,000 American prisoners of war had to march from Bataan to their prisoner camp some 100km away. The number of American deaths is fairly well known and is around 500 which represents a rate of 3.3%. The Filipino deaths are more uncertain (between 5,000 and 18,000); if we take 10,000 as a rough estimate, the death rate is 17%. It should be added that the march took place after a siege of 3 months. For the 700 POWs of Kings Mountain a death rate of 3% would have led to 20 deaths. Naturally the conditions differed greatly but at least this number gives an order of magnitude in the sense that one can be sure that the real number is not 10 times smaller or 10 times larger.

According to Allaire, the rebel officers would often come among the prisoners, draw their swords and wound "those whom their wicked mind prompted".

Lt Allaire reports that on 17 oct 1780 three prisoners attempted to make their escape. Two succeeded but the third "was shot through the body".

In a general way suspected Loyalists were often led on long marches. For instance in November-December 1776 some 230 Loyalists of New York state had to march 400km to Exeter In New Hampshire. Other NY Loyalists were sent to Massachusetts, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. As 35km/day can be considered as a reasonable assumption of average velocity a march of 400 km would last 10 days in the mid of winter probably with little food and no covered shelter during the night. One would like to know the death rate for weak or wounded persons.

In all American accounts of the long marches faced by British prisoners of war there is a marked tendency to attribute melting numbers to escapes rather than to deaths. The fate of the Convention army (consisting in prisonrers made at Saratoga) is another illustration.

The so-called "Trials of Tears" of native American Indians come to mind. In the 1830s they were led from various locations to the state of Oklahoma, i.e. west of the Mississippi. Often such marches took also place in winter time. One reads that this was the request of the Indians themselves supposedly in order to avoid the risk of diseases. Whether it was a wise decision is to be seen.

Later on, in the 1880s and 1890, the western Indians were marched to their reservations often after being kept for several months in prison camps in bleak conditions. It was not uncommon that they were transferred from one temporary reservation to another before being eventually settled in a more permanent place. So far, we have never seen any official death rate data for such episodes. Naturally, on weakened organisms, both disease and exertion had deadly effects.

M The spiral of retaliations

In December 1780 General Cornwallis declared: "Rebel parties have so terrified my people that I can get nobody to venture far enough out to ascertain anything".
What led to this situation?

The reason given by Robert Lambert (p.200) is so uncertain that it makes the reader uneasy. He says: After Cornwallis left South Carolina many of the British posts in which Loyalists served were taken by the Patriots. After the Loyalists were confined, it happened that some of them were set aside and hanged or shot individually or in small groups. This is of course a very serious assertion. If Lambert had some supporting evidence he should give it to his readers. If he had none it would be better to omit such a statement.

It is true that in the subsequent pages he cites some cases, but in small number. Here are two illustrations.

When Fort Motte surrendered Tory Lieutenant George Fulker and John Jackson were hanged.

After Patriot General Thomas Sumter captured Orangeburg 14 prisoners who were being escorted to the camp of General Greene were executed. The shooting became known because one of the victims, militiaman Joseph Cooper, who was presumed dead in fact had survived (Lambert p.201) Contrary to the previous one which concerned only individuals, this episode is a mass shooting of the kind described above. However the event is described in two lines only and without indication of date. It is reported that the shooting occurred in the Fisher regiment but this was not of great interest because Lt-Col John Fisher was in charge of all the troops in Orangeburg.

N List of names of 300 Loyalist victims in SC

A petition dated 19 April 1782 was sent by American Loyalists to Lord Germain who was the minister of George III in charge of the American war. The petition was signed by 11 officers from the Ninety Six and Camden districts.

In an appendix the petition contained 300 names of Loyalists said to have been "massacred" or "murdered" (depending on the version) in the district of Ninety Six. The terms "massacred" or "murdered" mean that they were not killed in regular battles. The list is available on Internet but one should pay attention to the fact that there are several versions. Although the names are the same, the comments which introduce and follow the list may be somewhat different.

O Names of Loyalists in the NY state counties of Albany and Queens