The law of loyalism: The Campbell family, the court of session, and the price of loyalty in the revolutionary Atlantic world

ABSTRACT

This essay reconstructs the experiences of prominent Charleston merchant Colin Campbell, and his niece Louisa Campbell, to explore how Scots loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution later defended their interests in Scotland’s Court of Session. Using the case of Campbell and Ferrier v. Campbells (1796) as an organizing framework, it demonstrates how Scots litigated their suffering at the hands of American Patriots. It shows how lawsuits like it were embedded in a larger transatlantic legal ecosystem that shaped their outcome. The legal contest between Louisa Campbell and her cousins over Colin Campbell’s American property tied together legislatures and courts in South Carolina, Georgia, London, and Edinburgh. By doing so, they compelled the Lords of Session, the judges who sat on the bench of Scotland’s supreme civil court, to define American Independence.

KEYWORDS:

• Court of session
• South Carolina
• Loyalists
• confiscation
• law
• Scotland‌

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Codicil to the will of Colin Campbell, 31 October 1780. The Ralph Izard who became Campbell’s brother-in-law is not to be confused with the Ralph Izard who served in the Continental Congress.

2 Campbell to [Lord George Germain], 17 December 1777, [Number 1].

3 Archibald Campbell, Jr., “The Petition of Miss Louisa Campbell,” 5 July 1796, 3.

4 “An Act for Disposing of Certain Estates, 26 February 1782”; Royal Gazette (Charleston, SC), 20 March 1782.

5 See, for example, Muirhead, Hay, and Company v. Dunmore (1797); Irvine vs. Reid’s Executors (1797); MacDonald, “Memorial for Alan Cameron,” 13 September 1810.

6 Brannon, From Revolution to Reunion; Brown, Alexander Hamilton and the Development of American Law, 174–191; Hadden, “Lawyering for Loyalists,” 134–147. See, also, Larson, Trials of Allegiance.

7 See, Hook, Scotland and America, and McCaslin, “‘Great gathering of the clans.’”

8 Jasanoff, Liberty’s Exiles, 351–358.

9 Mason, “The American Loyalist Problem,” 62. See also Minty, “Reexamining Loyalist Identity,” 33–47.

10 William McLeod to Donald McLeod, 8 September 1775; McConville, The King’s Three Faces, 281–312; Jasanoff, Liberty’s Exiles, 22–53; Irvin, “Tar, Feathers, and the Enemies of American Liberties,” 197–238.

11 Lord William Campbell to William Legge, Lord Dartmouth, 23 July 1775; Campbell to Dartmouth, 19 September 1775.

12 Cheves, “Izard of South Carolina,” 235–236.

13 Campbell to Dartmouth, 23 January 1776; Coghlan, “Campbell, Lord William.”

14 Campbell, “A Note on the Campbells of Lix,” (no. 3), 26–27; Will of Colin Campbell, 31 October 1780; The Georgia Gazette, 1 February 1769; Cheves, “Izard of South Carolina,” 235–236.

15 For the South Carolina plantation economy, see Edelson, Plantation Enterprise in Colonial South Carolina; Duval, “Mastering Charleston,” 589–622.

16 Smith, “Upper Ashley,” 188–190; Ivers, This Torrent of Indians, 230n23.

17 Massey, “Middleton, Henry (1717–1784);” Middleton served as a trustee for the estate of Rebecca’s late father, Ralph. See Cheves, “Izard of South Carolina,” 234.

18 Indenture between Basil Cowper & Wife and Henry Middleton, et al. 31 January 1769, 4–23.

19 Campbell, “Note on the Campbells of Lix,” 28; State of the Process of the Executors, 5 February 1788.

20 Codicil to the will of Colin Campbell, 31 October 1780.

21 Brannon, From Revolution to Reunion, 23.

22 George III, “By the King, A Proclamation,” 23 August 1775.

23 See, Ousterhout, “Pennsylvania Land Confiscations,” 329; Statutes at Large (Viginia), 9: 281–283.

24 Brannon, From Revolution to Reunion, 22–23.

25 27 November 1777, Journal of the Continental Congress, 9:971.

26 George McCall to Archibald McCall, 15 May 1778, 327; “An Act for the Forfeiture and Sale,” 1:26–38; Lambert, “Confiscation of Loyalist Property in Georgia,” 80–94.

27 “William Henry Drayton to Henry Laurens, 1 November 1777,” The Papers of Henry Laurens, 12:1.

28 Norton, The British-Americans, 42–43.

29 Ibid., 43, 52–60.

30 Germain was the likely recipient of Campbell’s letters. After he became Secretary of State for the Colonies in November 1775, Germain handled requests for relief funds prior to the Treasury’s pension scheme. Norton, 52–54; Campbell to [Lord George Germain?], 17 December 1777 [Number 1]; Campbell to [Lord George Germain?], 17 December 1777 [Cover Letter].

31 To the Right Honble the Lords Commissioners, 29 May 1778.

32 The Memorial of Hugh Campbell of Lix, 4 December 1783.

33 For the southern campaign, see Ferling, Almost a Miracle, 407–520.

34 “Elizabeth Izard (Mrs. Daniel) Blake to Harriott Pinckney Horry, 5 January 1779.”

35 Codicil to the will of Colin Campbell, 31 October 1780.

36 The Royal Gazette (Charleston, SC), 15 February 1781.

37 Duval, “Mastering Charleston,” 589–590.

38 “An Act for Disposing of Certain Estates, 26 February 1782.”

39 Royal Gazette (Charleston, SC), 20 March 1782.

40 Lambert, “Confiscation of Loyalist Property in Georgia,” 82–83.

41 The Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783.

42 Hobson, “The Recovery of British Debts,” 176–200; Cairns, “Scottish Law and the Status of the Union,” 250–252; James Grant, of Corrimony, “The Petition of Jean Coalston,” 13 November 1770; Mackay, Selected Papers, 204.

43 Kempe v. Antill (1785), Reports of Cases Argued, 2:11–12; Norton, 207–208; Ogden v. Folliott (1790), Term Reports in the Court, 3: 726-735. For Common Pleas case, see Folliot v Ogden (1789), Reports of cases argued and determined in the Courts of Common Pleas, 1:123–155. To this report, Blackstone appended Wright v. Nutt (1788), which was decided in the Court of Chancery. The case involved the American estate of James Wright, the deposed Royal Governor of Georgia. Ogden v Folliott (1792), The English Reports of the House of Lords, 2:75–89

44 Norton, 185–222.

45 Wills Proved at Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 2 January 1783.

46 The Memorial of Hugh Campbell of Lix, 4 December 1783.

47 Codicil to the will of Colin Campbell, 31 October 1780; Sale of 27 Negroes; Campbell, “A Note on the Campbells of Lix,” (no. 4), 49–50.

48 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 2:13.

49 Erskine, An Institute of the Law of Scotland, 240–243.

50 Campbell, Jr., “The Petition of Miss Louisa Campbell,” 5; MacLeod-Bannatyne, “Answers for Mrs Mary Campbell,” 1 September 1796, 2–3.

51 MacLeod-Bannatyne, “Answers for Mrs Mary Campbell,” 1 September 1796, 10.

52 Ibid., 6–7.

53 Ibid., 7–8.

54 Campbell, Jr., “The Petition of Miss Louisa Campbell,” 5 July 1796, 5.

55 Ibid., 6–7.

56 Ibid., 7–8.

57 Ibid., 6.

58 Ibid., 17.

59 O’Shaughnessy, “‘If Others Will Not Be Active,’” 1–46.

60 Campbell, Jr., “Petition of Miss Louisa Campbell,” 5 July 1796, 18.

61 Ibid., 10.

62 MacLeod-Bannatyne, “Answers for Mrs Mary Campbell,” 1 September 1796, 18, 33–36.

63 Phillipson, Scottish Whigs and the Reform of the Court of Session, 53–54.

64 MacLeod-Bannatyne, “Answers for Mrs Mary Campbell,” 1 September 1796, 8, 26–36.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

James P. Ambuske

James P. Ambuske is a historian of the American Revolution, Scotland, and the British Atlantic world. He is a Historian and Senior Producer at R2 Studios, the podcast wing of the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. He is the author and co-author of several essays on Scotland, the American Revolution, and transatlantic law, including “‘Ours is a Court of Papers’: Exploring Scotland and the British Atlantic World using the Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive Project.” International Review of Scottish Studies 44 (2019), and with Randall Flaherty, “Reading Law in the Early Republic: Legal Education in the Age of Jefferson.” In The Founding of Mr. Jefferson’s University, edited by John A. Ragosta, Peter S. Onuf, and Andrew J. O’Shaughnessy. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2019.