Contents—Definition—A division—Their principles—Our position—Ancestry—Dutch—Puritans—Huguenots—New Rochelle—English writers—Talbot—Falsehoods—Canadian and English ancestry—Howison—Maligner—Gourlay’s reply—Palatines—Old names.
Under this designation allusion is made to all who left, or were compelled to leave, the revolting colonies, and Independent States, and who sought a home in the wilderness of Canada. There is, however, a class which will be specially referred to, who, in subsequent years, were placed upon the “U. E. list,” and who, by virtue thereof, secured important privileges to themselves and family.
The United Empire Loyalist, was one who advocated, or wished to have maintained, the unity of the British empire, who felt as much a Briton in the colony of America, as if he were in old England; who desired to perpetuate British rule in America; not blindly believing that no imperfections could exist in such rule, but desiring to seek reform in a conservative spirit. This class, we have seen, became, as the tide of rebellion gained strength and violence, exceedingly obnoxious to those in rebellion against their King and country. It will be convenient to divide them into three classes, viz., (1.) Those who were forced to leave during the contest, many of whom took part in the war; (2.) Those who were driven away after the war, because they were known or suspected to have sympathy with the loyalist party, and (3.) Those who would not remain in the Republic, who voluntarily forsook the land of their birth or adoption, and removed to a country which acknowledged the sovereignty of the King of England. Many of this noble class relinquished comfortable homes, rather than live under an alien flag; they preferred, above all measure, to enter a wilderness and hew out a new home. They would live anywhere, endure any toil, undergo any privation, so long as they were in the King’s dominion, and the good old flag waved over their head, and their families. It was oft declared that their bones should lie on the King’s soil. These sentiments are taken, not from the imagination, but from the accumulated testimony of those who have supplied statements of family history. Elsewhere it has been shewn how cruel were the persecutions made against the “tories,” how relentless the spirit of vengefulness. All this, it may be said by some, should be forgotten,—buried in the past, with the whigs and tories, both of whom committed errors and outrages. Under certain circumstances this would be the proper course—the course indicated by the great Ruler; but, regarding the United States in the light derived from the statesmen, orators, and the press, it cannot for a moment be allowed. Until the descendants of those who successfully rebelled in 1776, cease to vilify our fathers; until they can find other subject matter for their fourth of July orations, than foul abuse of our country; until they can produce school-books which are not stained by unjust and dishonest representations; and books of a religious nature which are not marred by unchristian, not to say untruthful, statements respecting Britain and her colonies. Until the “Great Republic” can rise above the petty course of perpetuating old feuds, we cannot—we whose fathers suffered, cannot be required to shut our mouths, and thereby seemingly acquiesce in their uncharitable and malignant charges against the U. E. Loyalists. Washington was a rebel as much as Jefferson Davis, and history will accord to the latter a character as honorable and distinguished as the former. Washington succeeded against a power that put not forth the gigantic efforts which the United States did to subjugate the States over which Jefferson Davis presided. By the events of the civil war in the United States, we, the descendants of those who occupied the same relative position in the American Revolution, feel it right to be guided.
The most of the loyalists were Americans by birth. Their feelings of attachment to the realm, preponderated over the attachments which bound them to the homes of their childhood and maturer years. The great majority of those who settled Upper Canada were from the Provinces of New York, Pennsylvania, and the New England States. New York, originally a Dutch colony, had many loyal sons. Indeed this state was dragged into the rebellion. It follows that a goodly number of the settlers around the bay were of Dutch extraction, and possessed all the honesty and industry peculiar to that people. The U. E. list, and the larger list of refugees, include a large number of names unmistakably Dutch. But there came from this state as well, many a true son of England, Ireland, and Scotland, with a sprinkling of the Huguenots, and the Germans, the last of whom began to emigrate to America in 1710. Many of the settlers of Upper Canada may point with pride to their Dutch forefathers. Many Canadians have an equal right also to boast of their Puritan fathers. They more especially may point to the justice-loving ones who came to America with honest William Penn, whose son was also a refugee from the State his father founded, not by taking forceable possession, but by buying the land from the Indians.
Among the devoted band of firm adherents to the British Crown were not a few of the descendants of the Huguenots, whose fathers had been expatriated by the King of France, because they were Protestants, and who had found safe homes in England. So early as 1686, a number of Huguenots found their way to America. And from time to time, accessions were made to the number by emigration. They mostly settled in Westchester County, New York, in 1689, where a tract of land was purchased for them by Jacob Leisler, of the Admiralty, and there founded a town called New Rochelle, after Rochelle in France, noted for the stand its inhabitants took against Roman Catholicism. In 1700, New Rochelle had become quite a place, and here was found, when the rebellion had commenced, “a vast number of Militia officers loyal to the backbone.”—(Ruttan).
The ancestry of the U. E. Loyalists has been called in question, not by the rebels alone, but by British subjects. The few instances constitute, fortunately, but exceptions to a general rule. Travelers from Great Britain have repeatedly, perhaps we may say persistently, displayed an astonishing amount of ignorance of the people of Canada and its society. Allowance can be made for a certain amount of egotism, but downright bias is unworthy a high-minded writer. Incapable of examining any subject, except from a stand point exclusively English, they have found no difficulty in attributing the most unworthy and even scandalous causes to a state of society to them unusual, and seemingly abnormal. Perhaps no writer has so disgraced himself, in writing about Canada, as Talbot. Certainly no one more ignobly essayed to injure Canadian reputation in Great Britain than he. “Mr. Talbot has stated in his book that most of the Canadians are descended from private soldiers or settlers, or the illegitimate offspring of some gentlemen, or his servant.” The writer had no scruples in publishing a falsehood. Full well he knew how noble had been the conduct of the U. E. Loyalists as a class; who relinquished property, homes,—everything for a cause dear to their heart. Private soldiers indeed! They thought it no disgrace to enter the ranks to help to suppress an unrighteous rebellion. And the descendants of the private soldiers feel it an honor to claim them for sires. Mr. Talbot, we are informed, came to Canada to speculate in lands; and his record does not justify him in casting a stigma upon the fathers of Canada. Could we accept a slanderous statement as true, yet the question might be raised:—Is not their origin as good as many of the great houses of Great Britain would be found, were we enabled to trace back their pedigree. Probably, at the present time, and perhaps at no time, did more than a few read the pages of Mr. Talbot’s production. But lest there might come a time when the false statements should be reiterated, we felt it our duty to thus advert to the subject.
Another writer, to whom it may be well to refer, is one Dr. John Howison, who wrote Sketches of Upper Canada. His knowledge of Canada was pretty much confined to the Niagara district. Hear what the great (?) man said of the inhabitants. “They are still the untutored incorrigible beings that they probably were, when the ruffian remnant of a disbanded regiment, or the outlawed refuse of some European nation, they sought refuge in the wilds of Upper Canada, aware that they would neither find means of subsistence, nor be countenanced in any civilized country. Their original depravity has been confirmed and increased by the circumstances in which they are now placed.” This is a pleasant picture that the accomplished doctor draws of our forefathers. The very flagrancy of the falsehood has rendered the above statement as harmless as the doctor’s reputation is unknown. It is but too common a story for a stupid Englishman, with no other ideas than those derived from supreme egotism, to pass through our country, and after merely glancing at the outside of everything, proceed to give an account of the people of Canada. But this Howison was either guilty of drawing his views from Yankee sources, or of giving vent to some spiteful feeling. Robert Gourlay, who was no tory, referring to the above statement, speaks in this way:—“It is not true, it is not fair, it is not discreet. The first settlers of Upper Canada, in my opinion, were wrong headed men as to politics; but they were far from being bad-hearted men, and anything but “the ruffian remnant of a disbanded regiment.” They were soldiers who had done their duty: who had regarded with reverence their oath of allegiance; who had risked their lives a hundred times over in support of their principles; who had sacrificed all which the world in general holds dear, to maintain their loyalty and honor. They were anything but the “outlawed refuse of some European nation.” They adhered to the laws of Britain; and for the laws of Britain they bled. They did not “seek refuge in the wilds of Upper Canada, aware they would neither find means of subsistence, nor be countenanced in any civilized country.” It is a libel on the British Government to say they sought refuge, and a libel on common sense to say that men, who resolved to earn their bread by labour, under the worst circumstances in the world, could not find means of subsistence anywhere else. The whole passage is untrue, is shameful, and Dr. Howison should apologize for it in the public prints of this country. These very farmers whom he scandalizes so cruelly, stood up for British Government most noble during the late war, (1812), many of them lost their all at that time (in Niagara District), and to many of them the British Government is now deeply indebted. The mass of first settlers in Upper Canada were true men, and to this day there is a peculiar cast of goodness in their natures, which distinguishes them from their neighbours in the United States. There were among them ruffians of the very worst description. His Majesty’s ministers needed spies, and horse stealers, and liars, and perjured villains; and America furnished such characters, just as England can furnish an Oliver and an Edward. Why should a whole people be slandered because of a few? Dr. Howison wrote in Canada only to trifle, and now we see the consummation, we see a book very well written; very readable as a romance—the tale of a weak man; but as it affects men, worse than trifling—scandalous. To say all the ill he could of Canada, and no good of it is unfair—is deceitful—after all, in his parting exclamations, he “spoke about the happy shores of Canada.” The refined Dr. Howison, it would seem, remembered “many civilities” from the Canadians; but because he could not appreciate the nobility of nature when crowned by the rough circumstances of pioneer life, he must needs write a libel. No doubt his mind was influenced by Yankee tales of Butlers’ Rangers, and perhaps his exquisite sensibility was wounded, forsooth, because a Canadian would not touch his hat to him.” Robert Gourlay was a friend to Canada, a friend to humanity; he was not always right; but he was far more correct while in Canada than those who persecuted him. He was a patient and close observer, and made himself thoroughly acquainted with Canada, and his statement in reply to Howison’s utterances are fully satisfying. What was true of the settlers at Niagara, must remain true of the whole class of U. E. Loyalists. Notwithstanding the many adverse circumstances—the earnest contest for life, the daily struggle for food, their isolation from the influences of civilized life, the absence of regular ministers of the gospel, notwithstanding all, the old soldiers constituted a band of pioneers infinitely better than those who form the outer belt of settlers, at the present day, in the Western States.
As intimated, not a few of the U. E. Loyalists were descendants of those who had likewise been driven, by persecution, from their homes. There were not only the children of the noble old Huguenots, but a good many German Irishmen, called Palatines. They originally came from the Palatinate of the Rhine, once the possession of the House of Palatine. The Palatines were Protestants, and during the seventeenth century, were exposed to the most cruel barbarities. They fled in thousands to the friendly camp of the Duke of Marlborough, when commander of the allied armies. In 1709, Queen Anne sent a fleet to Rotterdam for the distressed Palatines, and carried about 7,000 to England. Of these, 3,000 were sent to New York, but finally found homes in Pennsylvania, among the Quakers. The names of some of these are before us, and it may be seen they are familiar ones, although some of them are somewhat altered.
Frantz Lucas, Deitrich Klein, Conrad Frederick, Ludwig, Henrich Newkirk, Keiser, John Mortan, Casper Hartwig, Christoper Warner, Hermanus Hoffman, Rudolph Neff, Schmidt, Schumacher, Lenhard, John Peter Zenger, Philip Muller, Schaffer, Peter Wagner, Straule, Henrich Man, Eberhard, Kremer, Franke Ross, Peter Becker, Christian Meyer, Godfry Fidler, Weller, George Mathias, Christo, Hagedom, Fink, John William Dill, Bernard, Conradt, Bellinger.
“Of those who remained, five hundred families removed to Ireland, and settled, principally, in the County of Limerick.” Among their names we find, Baker, Barham, Barrabier, Bennoser, Bethel, Bowen, Bowman, Bovinezer, Brethower, Cole, Coach, Corneil, Cronsberry, Dobe, Dulmage, Embury, Fizzle, Grunse, Grier, Heck, Hoffman, Hifle, Heavener, Ozier, (probably Lazier of our day), Lawrence, Lowes, Rhineheart, Rose, Rodenbucher, Ruckle, Switzer, Sparling, Stack, St. John, St. Ledger, Strongle, Sleeper, Shoemaker, Shier, Smeltzer, Shoultace, Shavewise, Tesby, (probably Detlor of our day), Tettler, Urshelbaugh, Williams, and Young.
A certain number of the Palatines settled at the German Flats, many of whom, being Loyalists, were obliged to leave; and become pioneers in Canada. Likewise, were there many from other parts of the State, and from Pennsylvania.
In the early history of New York State, may be found many names, generally Dutch-like, closely resembling those of the first settlers of Western Canada.
In a letter, dated “Albany, 30 July, 1689,” we find the names of Capt. Bleeker and D. Myers.
At a convention at Albany, Oct. 24, 1669, was present, among others, Gert Ryerse, Jan Jense Bleeker.
“Proposals made to ye people, Albany, ye 5 day of November, 1689, by 40 inhabitants,” among which is Jacob Vanden Bogaert.
“At a meeting, at Albany, 28th March, 1690,” were present, Gert Ryersen, John Pietersen, Hendrick Hedgeman, (Hagerman).
At a meeting in Albany, after the massacre of Schenectady, February 9, 1690, to arrange for defending against the French and Indians, and to bury the dead; there were, among 60 others present, D. Wessels, Rector, J. Bleecker, Ald. Ryckman, Ens. Bennet.
In the list of those killed at Schenectady, are several of the
Vroomans, Symon, Skemerhoorn. “Taken prisoners at Skinnechtady,
and carried to Canada ye 9th day of February, 1689
90.” “John
Wemp, sonne of Myndt & 2 negroes, and 26 others.”
In a list of officers in the Province of New York, 1693, members of Council—are found Phillips, Brock, Lawrence, Young, Marshall, Shaw, Evetts, (probably Everit), Handcock, Dirck Wessels, Recorder at Albany; Beekman, Howell, Barker, Platt, Whitehead, Harrison, Hageman, Strycker, Willet. Among the militia officers, N. Yorrk, 1700, we find Booth, Moore, Wheler, Hubbs, Kechum, Frederick, Daniel Wright; Robert Coles; Lake, Hegemen, Evert, Bogardus, Hosbrooke, Rose.
List of inhabitants in County of Orange, 1702, we find—Geritssen, (Garrison), Reynerssen, (Ryerson), Ceniff, Mieyer, (Meyer,) Weller, Coeper, Merritt.
Freeholders of the city and county of Albany, 1720, Williams, Van Alen, Holland, Collins, Van Dyke, several Bleeker’s; Cornelius Boarghaert, Vandusen, Meebe, Weemp, (Wemp), Trueax, Van Valkenburgh, Huyck, Gardimer, Dingmans, VanAlstine, Coonradt, Ham, Luyke, Deeker, Esselstine, Fritts, Quackenboes, (Quackenbush), Van Rensalaer.
In the war of the Indians, at the battle of Point Pleasant, 1774, there was killed, among others, Ensign Candiff.
The following we take from the Schenectady Evening Star:
Valley of the Mohawk in Olden Times.—Schoharie—The Vroomans.—When the Schoharie settlements were invaded by the British, under Colonel Butler, in the year 1789, the following persons, among others, were murdered by the Indians: Tunis Vrooman, his wife and son, and on this occasion Ephraim Vrooman and his two sons, Bartholomew, Josias and John Vrooman, Bartholomew Vrooman, Jr., and his wife and son Jacob, were taken prisoners. The wife and daughter of Ephraim Vrooman was killed by an Indian named Seth Hendrick. Mr. E. Vrooman, while on his way to Canada, whither he was carried in captivity, was under the immediate charge of Seth Hendrick, who treated him with much kindness. There were two or three Indians who accompanied Seth. These before they arrived at their destination, grew tired of their prisoner, and proposed to despatch him. Mr. Vrooman overheard the conversation, which was conducted in a whisper, and repeated it to Hendrick. Hendrick assured him in the most positive manner, that “not a hair of his head should be touched,” and gave his companions a severe reprimand for their ungenerous conspiracy. After the termination of the Revolutionary contest, Hendrick paid Mr. Vrooman a visit, and apologised for his conduct during the war, in the strong, metaphorical language of his nation: “The tomahawk,” said he, “is used only in war; in time of peace it is buried; it cuts down the sturdy oak as well as the tender vine; but I (laying his hand on Mr. Vrooman’s shoulder) saved the oak.”
“Eva’s Kill.—The creek which runs through the village of Cranesville has, for the last ninety years, been known as Eva’s Kill, or creek. It owes this name to the circumstance of a woman named Eva being murdered near its banks. In the year 1755 Mrs. Van Alstine, from Canojoharie, traveled through this place on her way to this city to visit her parents. She was on horseback, and had her daughter with her, a child about four years of age. A party of French and Indians had just arrived from Canada, and were prowling about with murderous designs on the defenceless inhabitants of the Mohawk Valley. Espying Mrs. Van Alstine, they marked her for their prey. They pounced upon, wounded and scalped her, left her as they supposed, dead on the margin of the creek which bears her name. Her daughter they took to Canada. After they had departed, Mrs. Van Alstine partially recovered, and mustered strength enough to crawl to the river, on the opposite shore of which she saw some men standing, to whom she beckoned. She feared to speak lest she should be overheard by her enemies who were still in the neighborhood. These men came over cautiously, and conveyed her safely to her agonized parents. She lingered nine or ten days in a state of extreme suffering, when she gave up the ghost. Her daughter’s life was spared, and she, in time, was restored to her friends.”
In 1750–60, are found the names of Jordan, Dunham, Grant, Harkamer, Spenser, Peterson, Wilson, Church, Devenport, Kemp, Gibson.
Census of New York, about 1703. Amongst others, Vanhorn, Larrance, Loukes, Vandewater, White, Hams, Wessels, Wm. Taylor, Johnston, Vesey, Bogert, Oastrom, Waldron, Davis, Marshall, Clapp.
Census of Long Island, 1673.—Jacobs, Carman, Symonds, Beedel, Allen, Williams, Valentyn, Ellesson, (probably Allison), Osborne, Hobbs, Soddard, Ellison, Foster, Mott, Applebe, Persell, Truax, Hoyt.
The Roll of those who have taken the oath of allegiance, September, 1687: Peter Stryker, native of the Province; Cornelis Pertise, (Peterson), native; Beakman, native; Gerrit Dorlant, native; Joseph Hagemen, (Hagerman), 37 years; Adrien Ryerse, 41 years. Living in Breucklyn (Brooklyn): Covert, native; Bogaert, 35 years; Jan Fredericks, 35 years; Pieter Corson native; Caspere, (Casper); Jacobus Vande Water, (Vandewater), native; Dirck Janse Waertman, (Wartman), 40 years; Van Clief, De Witt, Loyse, Waldron, Willensen, Badgely, Culver, Jessop, Rogers, Diamond, Erle, Butler, Johnes (Jones), Whiting; Arnold, Washbourn, Way, Harton, Booth, Bradly, Goldsmith, Giles, Baily, Osmond, Carey, Case, Miller, Garitson.
Contents—Character—Hospitality—At home—Fireside—Visitors—Bees—Raisings—Easter Eggs—Dancing—Hovington House—Caste—Drinks—Horse-racing—Boxing—Amusements—La Crosse—Duels—Patriotism—Annexation—Freedom—Egotism—The Loyalists—Instances—Longevity—Climate of Canada—A quotation—Long lived—The children—The present race—A nationality Comparison—“U. E. Loyalist”—Their Privileges—Order of Council—Dissatisfaction.
When we compare the motives which actuated all classes of those who adhered to the Crown with the rebels in their various grades, we feel to exult and express sincere thankfulness that the fathers of Upper Canada were honest, devoted, loyal, truthful, law-abiding, and actuated by the higher motives which spring from religion. The habits of the loyalists were simple, and comparatively free from immorality. Their love of order and adherence to law is noteworthy. No people in the world have been characterised by so firm and devoted adherence to the established laws than the U. E. Loyalists. Never deprived of that freedom which ennobles the man, they always abominated that monstrous offshoot of republican liberty which teaches a man to take the law in his own hands. In later years in Canada some strife has been witnessed between parties who have introduced their national feuds from the old country. But those who fought in the revolutionary war, and who mainly assisted to drive back the invading foe in 1812, have always been peace-loving citizens. Lynch Law, (a term derived from a man of that name living in South Carolina, who constituted himself the arbiter between any contestants, and to their satisfaction) has always been held in utter detestation.
The settlers were always hospitable. The circumstances of their life, in which they so often were cast upon the care and attention of others, made each experience the deep feeling of gladness to have a visitor, which belongs to a sense of kindness received. In this they differed widely from the people of the more Northern States. Strangers were never turned away, and a clergyman, no matter of what denomination, was received “right gladly.” The Rev. Mr. Smart says that he was often up the Bay in his early days of ministerial labor, and he was ever treated by the inhabitants of all classes, with great hospitality. And after a few years had worn away, carrying with them the burden of many heart sorrows, there came an occasional opportunity to exchange friendly hospitality. Visiting indeed became a regular “institution,” to borrow a Yankee phrase. Near neighbours would of an evening call in, uninvited, to spend the evening, and talk over the times, present, past and coming. Sometimes visits were made to friends a long distance off, going by canoe or batteau, or perchance on horseback, by a bridle-path, with saddle-bags containing oats for the horse. But the winter visits were characterised more especially by genial hospitality. On such occasions the hostess brought forth things new and old. Choice viands, carefully stored away, were brought to the light. The first fruits of the soil were lavishly spread upon the unassuming board. The famine of 1787–8, and the subsequent lack of the necessaries of life, and the total absence of luxuries for many a year, had the effect of intensifying the value that might naturally be placed upon plenty and luxury. To be truly entertaining to guests, was to set before them a feast of good things. Hence it came in the later years of the country that the table of the well-to-do farmer always groaned with substantials and delicacies. On those occasions the old soldier recounted his deeds of warfare, and hairbreadth escapes, and his struggles in the wilderness. The blazing hearth became the centre of attractive conversation, and lit up the hardy faces of the pioneers, and the milder countenances of their wives and daughters, while in the back ground might be seen the bright eyes of the children, listening to the tales that were told. The younger ones had been ordered off to bed, but they lie wakeful in their bunks, which were in the same room, to catch the ever flowing talk. The conversation at these times did not always relate to those matters above stated, it often took a mysterious turn, and ghosts became the subject of their evening’s talk. The above is not from imagination, but in substance from the lips of more than one, who remembers to have occupied the little bunk and listened upon many an evening to the conversations.
Family visiting was a common mode of exchanging civilities. It was necessary because of the widely separated houses. The evenings were times of the most pleasing reunions. Every log house possessed a large Dutch fireplace, into which was placed a back log of immense size, while upon the hand irons, or, as at first, large square stones was heaped light dry wood which sent forth a cheerful blaze. By the light thus made there would be in the fall and winter carried on various household duties, each family was to a great extent dependent upon themselves for almost everything required upon a farm, or about a farm-house. The wife would be busy carding, or making clothes of home-made linen, or of cloth. The daughters would be employed in mending or darning. The farmer would be engaged in making or repairing harness, or boots, or “fixing” an implement of husbandry, while the son would be fashioning an axe-helve, or an ox-yoke, or whittling a whip handle. The simple meal, though of a homely fare, was satisfying, for their taste was not pampered by unnecessary luxuries when alone. But when company came everything was changed. The work was put aside, and they set themselves out to make their visitors enjoy themselves. They would encircle the wide and glowing fire, and indulge in the most amiable talk. There was no spirit of envy in their midst, but a quiet content and thankfulness that the wilderness was beginning to blossom. The triumphs of the past would be duly recounted, and the future looked forward to with highest hopes. Plans would be canvassed and laid for the children, while apples, cider and nuts would receive due attention by all. At these meetings were often the young folks—marriageable daughters and sons who had been preparing to go on the other farm, or back hundred acres where a log house was partially erected; before long the company would be divided into two distinct groups, the old and the young. Sometimes matters would be managed that the older ones would meet at one house and the young at another, by which means a more pleasing state of things was created. But courting, or sparking as it was termed, was generally done upon Sunday evening. The day of rest was the only one when the love-sick swain could get away. And even the most exemplary Christians regarded “going to see the girls” on a Sunday night as quite allowable. Then, this practice favored the desire, so prevalent, to keep secret the intention of any two to get married.
Visits were made without invitations. To wait for an invitation was quite contrary to the primitive views of the settlers. The visit must be a voluntary action. Even to give a hint to one to make a visit by parties not related was considered as beneath proper respect. It was a species of independence. “I don’t want one to come to my house if he don’t want to,” the phase went in that way. But there were occasions when invitations were sent out, and that was when some help was required; and to persons not familiar with the habits, it will seem strange that it was considered a compliment to get an invitation, and a slight to be neglected. These invitations were to be present at bees, and help to do work. At the first these bees were common, to put up the log houses, and get a little clearing done, by a certain time. But afterwards, though less frequent, they were of a more pretentious nature. Raising Bees were in time, indications of prosperity. A frame barn or house showed that the farmer was progressing, and in accordance with the general expectation, treated “the hands” with the best he had. Then there were, beside the raising bees, the clearing bees, logging bees, and stone bees, and husking bees, and in later times apple bees; and there was the women’s bee for quilting. All these meetings were of a more or less hilarious order. The work was done, and done with a will; it was a sort of duty—a matter of principle that either the work should be done, or a proper effort made to that end. For many years spirituous liquors were dealt out, or set freely before the men, but in time, some, seeing the evil of drinking, and sometimes fearful of accidents, determined to discontinue the custom. Whether drinking was indulged in or not, all were treated to a glorious supper, generally of pot-pie and cakes, and pies of pumpkin and apple. The women folks of course, required assistance, and the neighbours would come to help, so that at night there would be collected a goodly number of both sexes. Husking bees and apple bees took place at night, but they did not last so long that no time was allowed for amusement. And then commenced the play and the dance. At first these unions and plays were exceedingly harmless and indulged in with the utmost artlessness. The young of both sexes were well known to each other, and it was more like a family gathering than aught else. But now fortunately these bees and kissing-plays are no longer in vogue. They were natural enough in the days of primitive pioneer life; but with increasing inhabitants and the addition of people of other countries, they became unnatural.
The breaking up of winter brought to a termination for a time, all the social festivities. In connection with sugar making was here and there a jovial meeting to “sugar off.”
Aside from the Sabbath there were but few holidays; and, with many, Christmas was imperfectly observed. Easter was remembered principally because of the feast of eggs on Sunday. At first, when hens were scarce, it was not every family that had eggs on that day, or had enough. So it came to pass that eggs would be preserved beforehand, not by the natural provider however. The boys regarded it as their prerogative to hide the eggs for some time before, and even when it was unnecessary, large numbers would be safely secreted by the young ones. This was generally done by the youngest, old enough; and he was to so hide them that no one could find them. The honor was lost if the eggs were found. The Easter morning consequently was one of anticipation, to see however many eggs had been preserved.
An old settler of Ameliasburgh discourses of Bees in this wise: “Bees were great institutions in those days, every settler was licensed to make two or three each year, provided he furnished a good “pot pie,” and plenty of grog, and never made any objections to his guests fighting. Fighting might take place at any stage, but more generally occurred after work was done, before and after supper.”
Dancing seems to have been particularly attractive to almost all. Almost every neighbourhood or concession had its fiddler, the only kind of instrumental music of the times. The fiddler was generally an old soldier, who had acquired some knowledge of the art of playing during his time of service.
A kind correspondent, (Morden), has supplied us pleasing information, obtained from an old resident of Sophiasburgh. This person came from Adolphustown, when a girl of fifteen, in the first year of the present century. We quote:—“She tells many funny stories of balls and private “sprees” that they used to have over in the Indian woods, at Capt. Isaac’s (Hill), an Indian chief, who had a large house, which is still occupied, and which appears to have been the scene of numberless “hops,” &c. They could have a civil dance at Captain Isaac’s, and it would not cost much. The Sixth Town youngsters seem to have delighted in patronizing his house.” This young woman married and became, with her husband, a pioneer of Ameliasburgh, in 1805. It seems that these new settlers of the Seventh Town considered themselves somewhat superior to the inhabitants generally, and would not join in their “frolickings,” but would occasionally visit Sophiasburgh for the purpose of having a “spree.” This feeling of caste was a marked feature in the several townships at an early date.
The Hovington House, situated about sixty rods above the bridge at Picton, was a place of no little fame. It was built by one Hovington who came with VanAlstine. It was a long narrow edifice forty or fifty feet deep, and about twenty feet broad, and not very high. It was divided into two portions by a log partition, the ends of which projected without. This public house was especially for the benefit of the settlers at East Lake, in their journeyings back and forth across the Carrying Place. To use the language of our informant, “it was a great place to dance and frolic.” At stated times the bay settlers would come even from forty miles distance, Fredericksburgh on the east, and the Carrying Place and Sidney on the west. But now the foundation of the old building which so often resounded to the sounds of mirth, the fiddle, and the tripping feet, can scarcely be traced.
As a general thing, the hard pinching circumstances of the new country brought all to a common level, excepting a few Government officials. But in certain localities there existed a feeling of superciliousness, not very deep, but yet it was there. The places, and the inhabitants thereof, in time, became noted as being “big feeling” or stylish. For instance, the denizens of Kingston regarded the settlers up the bay as somewhat behind them; while the people of the Fourth Town spoke disparagingly of the Fifth Towners. By the settlers of the Sixth and Seventh Towns, the citizens of Sidney and Thurlow were looked upon as stylish. But the wheel of fortune turned with many a one.
Amusement, and diversions of different kinds, when properly used, are not only allowable, but even salutary to man’s physical and mental state; but if uncontrolled by reason; if irrational from want of education, they may easily run into excess and immorality. To the educated man, who is cast away from all that can supply food for his mind, there is a terrible danger of seeking unholy and even vicious sources to allay the constant longing after mental food. There is likewise a danger of such seeking artificial excitement. To such the evil of intemperance too often comes with overwhelming waves steadily and certainly flowing. The first settlers of Upper Canada, when their circumstances are taken into consideration, and the usages of the times, it must be said, were not particularly addicted to the evil of intemperance. In after years, this evil did certainly increase; but at the first, although almost everyone had liquor of some kind in the house, yet the great majority were guiltless of excess. In those early days, teetotalism and temperance societies were unknown; but it must be here mentioned that the first temperance society organized in Canada, was in Adolphustown. The drinking usages of the day among all classes led to the erection of distilleries and breweries at an early period. There was also an extensive traffic in rum, and it is known that many a one made himself rich by selling to buyers along the bay, and across the Carrying Place up the lake, even as far as York.
Perhaps the most common out-of-door amusement was horse-racing, after horses became more general among the settlers. It was looked upon as dancing was by all, as amusement of the most unobjectionable character, and it is said of a certain reverend individual, that he was accustomed to run horses on his way home after preaching. Probably this was true, as the same person became a reprobate. On the occasion of the annual training of the Militia, which took place for many a year, the 4th June, (and this comes within the writer’s recollection) there was, at the different training places, more or less of horse racing. These races were made, not by horses trained specially for the purpose, but by such animals as were in daily use by the farmers, some of which, although ungainly in looks, and in indifferent condition, could get over the ground in a remarkably short time.
Kingston and Newark being military stations, were, from the presence of officers, who were always gentlemen by birth, more dignified in the ways of amusement. Not but gentlemen existed through the country, but not in sufficient numbers to regulate the modes of pleasure, and give tone to society. The officers were very fond of horse-racing, and would frequently spend field days, especially the King’s Birthday in testing the mettle of their steeds. At these there would generally be a great entertainment by the ladies who, says Colonel Clarke, would be gorgeously clad in “brilliant dresses, with threads of silver forming the motto, God save the King.”
A kind of amusement common at the close of the last century, and the beginning of the present, in America, and to a certain extent in Canada, was that of boxing—boxing that too often amounted to brutal fighting. There were a certain number in every township who availed themselves of training days to show their athletic qualifications. Gourlay says, 1817, that “pugilism, which once prevailed, is now declining.” And at the present day, happily, it is confined to those of a brutish disposition. It is only the lowest who find amusement in engaging in, or witnessing pugilistic encounters.
As Upper Canada was, in a limited sense, an offshoot of Lower Canada, so but a few of the peculiarities of Lower Canada were introduced to the Upper. One was that of Charivariing, which means a great noise with petty music. It was introduced from France. The custom is now almost obsolete among us, but time was when it was quite common. It generally was indulged in at second marriages, or when an unequal match and marriage took place; when a young girl married an old man for instance, or if either party were unpopular. The night of the wedding, instead of being passed in joyous in-door pleasures by the wedded ones, was made hideous by a crowd of masked persons, who with guns, tin-pans, pails, horns, horse-fiddles, and everything else that could be made to produce a discordant noise, disturbed the night until silenced by a treat, or money. Sometimes those meetings resulted in serious consequences to one or more of the party, by the bridegroom resorting to loaded fire-arms.
Sometimes the native Indians contributed to the general amusement, upon days when there was a public gathering. Now and then they engaged alone in certain sports which would be witnessed by the whites. Playing ball—bandy-ball, lacrosse, foot-races, and the war-dance, were occasionally engaged in. The present fashionable game of lacrosse is of Indian origin, and may well be remembered by every Canadian, and even American. After the conquest of Canada, when the Great Ottawa chief Pontiac had effected an alliance of all the western and northern tribes, to destroy the frontier forts of the British. There were several forts, originally French, along the upper lakes; two notably, one at Detroit, the other at Michilmacinac. Smaller forts had been attacked and taken, in most cases by treachery and Indian cunning. These two forts remained untaken. Pontiac devised the plan of pretending to wish for peace. With the ostensible intention of holding a council to make peace, the chiefs were to enter the forts; while the Indians, engaged in ball-playing along the ramparts, were to amuse those within the ramparts. The squaws were to be present, seemingly as spectators, but in reality to hold under their blankets, rifles, the ends of which had been cut off for concealment. At a given signal, the ball was to be knocked over the outer defence, and the Indians were to rush in as if to get it; but seizing their rifles from the women who had placed themselves conveniently, they were to rush in to slaughter the unsuspecting inmates. At Michilmacinac this proved successful, and the whole garrison was massacred, and Detroit barely escaped the same fate.
Dueling.—At the time when fierce encounters took place between organized forces in America, which resulted in the independence of the United States, and the settlement of Upper Canada, the practise of duelling obtained among the higher classes. Happily, this heinous crime, an outrage against humanity, is no longer tolerated where British laws and British principles of justice and freedom have force. But such was not the case seventy years ago. The early history of Canada witnessed a few personal engagements of honor. The first duel was between Peter Clark, Chief Clerk of the Legislative Council, and Captain Sutherland of the 25th regiment. The meeting took place at Kingston, and Mr. Clark fell fatally wounded. This occurred in the winter of 1795.
On the 22nd July, 1817, a duel was fought between S. P. Jarvis, Esq., and Mr. John Ridout. The latter received a wound in the chest and died in about an hour.
“Duel.—On Friday the 11th inst., Alexander McMillan, Esquire, and Alexander Thom, Esquire, met in a field on the Brockville Road, to decide an affair of honor—the former attended by Mr. Radenhurst, and the latter by Mr. Cumming. After exchanging shots, the seconds interfered, and on mutual explanations being made, the matter terminated amicably. Doctor Thom received a contusion on the leg.”
One of the latest instances in which a duel was fought in Upper Canada, occurred some forty years ago. The event resulted in the death of one of the combatants, the other, who was tried for his life, has now for some years adorned the bench of the Province.
Patriotism.—In no country upon the face of the Globe, and at no period in the history of any country, has appeared a higher or purer order of patriotism, than is written upon the pages of the history of British America. British connection is to mostly every son of the land dearer even than life itself. At least it has been so in respect to those of whom we write, the U. E. Loyalists. Co-equal with the love they have to the British Crown, is the hearty aversion they bear to Republicanism. Neither the overtures of annexation, nor the direct and indirect attempts to coerce, has produced a momentary wavering on the part of the descendants of the ancient stock. Americans in our midst have vainly tried to inoculate the minds of the people with the principles of Republican Government; but the Canadian mind was too free, the body politic too healthy, the system too strong to imbibe any lasting feeling of desire to change the tried for the untried. The few annexationists who have, from time to time, existed, were but the fungoid offshoot of a healthy plant. From the time Franklin and his coadjutors vainly essayed to draw the French Canadian into their rebellious cause, until the present there has been a frequently manifested desire, on the part of the United States, to force us into the union. The contemptible duplicity of Webster, who concealed from Ashburton the existence of a second map, whereby he tricked Canada, Yankee like, out of a valuable portion of territory along the Atlantic coast, with a view of cutting us off from the ocean. The declaration of war in 1812, and the repeated but unsuccessful invasions of our Province. The proclamations issued to Canadians, by the would be conquerors, Hull, Wilkinson, and others. Their sympathy and aid to turbulent spirits in 1836–7. The attempts at bullying England when she was at war with Russia. The organization of the Fenian association, with the publicly avowed purpose of seizing some portion of our Province. The abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, the object of which was proclaimed by Consul Potter—all along the eighty years’ history of the United States, is to be seen a disreputable attempt, by all possible means, to bully a weaker neighbor. All this does not become a great and honorable nation, a nation so extensive, whose people are so loud-tongued upon the principles of liberty—Liberty! The name with the United States is only synonymous with their government. They cannot discover that a people should be free to choose their own form of government, always excepting those who rebelled in 1776. Oh yes! we have liberty to choose; but then we must choose in accordance with Yankee ideas of liberty. Egotistic to the heart’s core, they cannot understand how we entertain views dissimilar to their own. How applicable the words of the immortal Burns:—