Joseph Galloway

And even though this was pretty rare, this house was in her name.

So when her husband, Joseph, who's a politician who was against the war, fled to England to save his own skin, he left her behind in the house.

We think he did that because he assumed no one would bother her.

This happened a lot to female Loyalists because women couldn't vote or legislate, and because the house was supposed to be hers.

I think of Pat O'Brien's great work on the Robie family of Halifax and Marblehead.

They had been exiled to Halifax, and the matriarch, Mary Bradstreet Robie, hated it in Halifax.

Never liked it one little bit, and eventually made it clear to her husband that she was going back home.

Her family was all there.

On behalf of the Loyalists, or Tories as they were popularly known, extravagant claims were made.

Joseph Galloway, who had been a member of the First Continental Congress and had fled to England when he saw its temper, testified before a committee of parliament in 1779 that not one-fifth of the American people supported the insurrection and that, quote, many more than four-fifths of the people prefer a union with Great Britain upon constitutional principles to independence, end quote.

At the same time, General Robertson, who had lived in America 24 years, declared that, quote, more than two-thirds of the people would prefer the king's government to the Congress's tyranny, end quote.

In an address to the king in that year, a committee of American loyalists asserted that, quote, the number of Americans in his majesty's army exceeded the number of troops enlisted by Congress to oppose them, end quote.

The revolution was not in any sense a religious war, but religious differences contributed to embitter the conflict, and doubtless made Whigs or Tories of people who had no other interest at stake.

it is commonly supposed that the loyalists drew their strength from the upper classes in the colonies while the revolutionists drew theirs from the proletariat there is just enough truth in this to make it misleading it is true that among the official classes and the large landowners among the clergymen lawyers and physicians the majority were loyalists and it is true that the mob was everywhere revolutionist but it cannot be said that the revolution was in any sense a war of social classes in it father was arrayed against son and brother against brother benjamin franklin was a whig his son sir william franklin was a tory in the valley of the susquehanna the tory colonel john butler of butler's rangers found himself confronted by his whig cousins colonel william butler and colonel zeb butler george washington thomas jefferson john adams were not inferior in social status to sir william johnson thomas hutchinson and joseph galloway and on the other hand there were no humbler peasants in the revolutionary ranks than some of the loyalist farmers who migrated to upper canada in seventeen eighty three all that can be said is that the loyalists were most numerous among those classes which had most to lose by the change and least numerous among those classes which had least to lose Much labor has been spent on the problem of the numbers of the loyalists.

No means of numbering political opinions was resorted to at the time of the revolution, so that satisfactory statistics are not available.

There was, moreover, throughout the contest a good deal of going and coming between the Whig and Tory camps, which makes an estimate still more difficult.

And Mr. Patterson reached back 13 years for his proof to the argument America itself had made against Parliament.

It had once been proposed, by Joseph Galloway and others before the war, that America be given seats in the British Parliament and be bound by its laws.

America would have held perhaps a third of the members.

and been outvoted forever.

The revolution was not in any sense a religious war, but religious differences contributed to embitter the conflict, and doubtless made Whigs or Tories of people who had no other interest at stake.

it is commonly supposed that the loyalists drew their strength from the upper classes in the colonies while the revolutionists drew theirs from the proletariat there is just enough truth in this to make it misleading it is true that among the official classes and the large landowners among the clergymen lawyers and physicians the majority were loyalists and it is true that the mob was everywhere revolutionist but it cannot be said that the revolution was in any sense a war of social classes in it father was arrayed against son and brother against brother benjamin franklin was a whig his son sir william franklin was a tory in the valley of the susquehanna the tory colonel john butler of butler's rangers found himself confronted by his whig cousins colonel william butler and colonel zeb butler george washington thomas jefferson john adams were not inferior in social status to sir william johnson thomas hutchinson and joseph galloway and on the other hand there were no humbler peasants in the revolutionary ranks than some of the loyalist farmers who migrated to upper canada in seventeen eighty three all that can be said is that the loyalists were most numerous among those classes which had most to lose by the change and least numerous among those classes which had least to lose Much labor has been spent on the problem of the numbers of the loyalists.

No means of numbering political opinions was resorted to at the time of the revolution, so that satisfactory statistics are not available.

There was, moreover, throughout the contest a good deal of going and coming between the Whig and Tory camps, which makes an estimate still more difficult.

In the valley of the Susquehanna, the Tory Colonel John Butler of Butler's Rangers found himself confronted by his Whig cousins, Colonel William Butler and Colonel Zeb Butler.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams were not inferior in social status to Sir William Johnson, Thomas Hutchinson, and Joseph Galloway.

And on the other hand, there were no humbler peasants in the revolutionary ranks than some of the Loyalist farmers who migrated to Upper Canada in seventeen eighty-three.

All that can be said is that the Loyalists were most numerous among those classes which had most to lose by the change and least numerous among those classes which had least to lose.

In the valley of the Susquehanna, the Tory Colonel John Butler of Butler's Rangers found himself confronted by his Whig cousins, Colonel William Butler and Colonel Zeb Butler.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams were not inferior in social status to Sir William Johnson, Thomas Hutchinson, and Joseph Galloway.

And on the other hand, there were no humbler peasants in the revolutionary ranks than some of the loyalist farmers who migrated to Upper Canada in 1783.

All that can be said is that the loyalists were most numerous among those classes which had most to lose by the change and least numerous among those classes which had least to lose.

If we are to believe his private letters with the secret ambition of obtaining the repeal of the act which closed Boston Harbor.

Joseph Galloway, another of the Loyalist leaders and the author of the last serious attempt at conciliation, actually sat in the First Continental Congress, which was called with the object of obtaining the redress of what Galloway himself described as the grievances justly complained of.

Still more instructive is the case of Daniel Delaney of Maryland.

Delaney, one of the most distinguished lawyers of his time, was, after the Declaration of Independence, denounced as a Tory.

His son, Sir William Franklin, was a Tory.

In the valley of the Susquehanna, the Tory Colonel John Butler of Butler's Rangers found himself confronted by his Whig cousins, Colonel William Butler and Colonel Zeb Butler.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams were not inferior in social status to Sir William Johnson, Thomas Hutchinson, and Joseph Galloway.

And, on the other hand, there were no humbler peasants in the revolutionary ranks than some of the Loyalist farmers who migrated to Upper Canada in seventeen eighty-three.

The revolution was not in any sense a religious war, but religious differences contributed to embitter the conflict, and doubtless made Whigs or Tories of people who had no other interest at stake.

it is commonly supposed that the loyalists drew their strength from the upper classes in the colonies while the revolutionists drew theirs from the proletariat there is just enough truth in this to make it misleading it is true that among the official classes and the large landowners among the clergymen lawyers and physicians the majority were loyalists and it is true that the mob was everywhere revolutionist but it cannot be said that the revolution was in any sense a war of social classes in it father was arrayed against son and brother against brother benjamin franklin was a whig his son sir william franklin was a tory in the valley of the susquehanna the tory colonel john butler of butler's rangers found himself confronted by his whig cousins colonel william butler and colonel zeb butler george washington thomas jefferson john adams were not inferior in social status to sir william johnson thomas hutchinson and joseph galloway and on the other hand there were no humbler peasants in the revolutionary ranks than some of the loyalist farmers who migrated to upper canada in seventeen eighty three all that can be said is that the loyalists were most numerous among those classes which had most to lose by the change and least numerous among those classes which had least to lose Much labor has been spent on the problem of the numbers of the loyalists.

No means of numbering political opinions was resorted to at the time of the revolution, so that satisfactory statistics are not available.

There was, moreover, throughout the contest a good deal of going and coming between the Whig and Tory camps, which makes an estimate still more difficult.