Scottish loyalism in the British Atlantic world

ABSTRACT

This group of essays explores the ways in which Scottish loyalists shaped and contributed to the British Atlantic world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Once thought of as a narrow and defensive conservative reaction to political change and external military threat, historians have recently recast loyalism as the embodiment of a disparate and multifaced identity embraced by those of different ethnicities, religions, and political persuasions, touching even those who claimed neutrality. By adopting an expanded geographical and chronological range, these essays investigate examples of loyalism and popular royalism carried by Scots at home and in the British Atlantic world, at the time of the Revolutionary War, and in the decades that followed. As these essays demonstrate, loyalism was a patriotism born out of the messiness of the political, social, and economic transformation of this world, one that was entwined with the expansion of democracy.

KEYWORDS:

• Loyalism
• British Atlantic world
• American Revolutionary War
• Scotland
• Jacobitism
• royalism

In one of a series of farewell addresses issued by the commanding officers of the 2nd and 3rd regiments of the Glengarry (Highlanders) Militia from Glengarry Country, Upper Canada, and published in the Cornwall Observer in October 1839, expressions of loyalty to the crown invoked a deeper emotional obedience than solely compliance with military orders:

Of our Loyalty and Patriotism, it would ill become us here to speak, but we humbly hope that your Excellency will be pleased to convey to our beloved Sovereign, the very high sense of these essential duties which we entertain in common with the most of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, and which we shall in as far as in us lies, fulfil to the letter.

Sir John Colborne, who had commanded the British forces in the Canadas during the 1837–1838 Rebellions, and enjoyed a close relationship with the Highland Scottish community of Glengarry, framed his reply by extolling the Highlanders’ loyalty against those who fell short of this transcendent standard:

In 1838, when a dark Conspiracy was planned by attainted Traitors from within, Refugees, Rebels from without, and a Banditti from the United States, the Highlanders were among the first in the field, and by their rapid march, they contributed much to frustrate the designs of the Revolutionists.

These perorations speak to the practice and the principle of loyalty to the British crown, to the challenge loyalism continued to face by advocates of democratic reform in North America, and the strength and persistence of loyalism in the decades beyond the immediate aftermath of the Revolutionary War. By building a foundation upon recent research into loyalism in Britain, Ireland, and the British Atlantic, this group of essays explores the many ways in which Scottish loyalists shaped the British Atlantic world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This research rejects assumptions that loyalism retracted quickly into insignificance following the American Revolution or that this identity was either constrained in ambition or coherent in form. By expanding both the geographical and chronological context, these essays investigate examples of loyalism and popular royalism across the British Atlantic world. Once thought of as a narrow and defensive conservative reaction to political change and external military threat, historians – as we will explain – now consider loyalism the embodiment of a disparate and multifaced identity. Principles of loyalism were embraced by those of different ethnicities, religions, and political persuasions and adopted by those who discovered the limits of neutrality in the aftermath of the Revolution. This collection shows that loyalism was a patriotism born out of the messiness of that political, social, and economic world that would continue to underpin the anti-democratic legitimist movement through to the early decades of the twentieth century.

Like many other imperial subjects, Scots demonstrated their support for the crown and empire in ways that are difficult to quantify or capture. What often united Scottish loyalists was a commitment to constitutionalism and counterrevolution. Yet the story is not straightforward, and our approach is to deconstruct and reassess seemingly antithetical positions within this political identity. Scottish loyalists might and often did comprise those who in other contexts were enemies of the crown, such as Highlanders and people for whom neutrality was a failed political strategy. Scots and Scottish allies were motivated to join the anti-republican and counter-revolutionary movement in support of British expansion and the preservation of empire, yet this did not preclude loyalists who once were loyal to the House of Hanover redirecting that fealty to the House of Stuart. Jacobite and Indigenous allies fought alongside Hanoverian Scots in British regiments, yet both loyalist and revolutionary adherents cooperated in the takeover of Indigenous land. Nor was Scottish loyalism solely a Protestant movement. Highland Scottish Catholics, though largely excluded from civic and political life in Britain until the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, were able, like their Irish counterparts, to take advantage of the relative freedom available to them in many of Britain’s Atlantic colonies, especially British North America. In these imperial contexts, Scottish Catholics contributed profoundly to the broader recognition of the colonial Catholic church as a loyal institution and on that basis participated fully in the settler-colonial project. Scottish Catholic loyalism was formed not only out of Britain’s accommodations for Catholics in its colonies – such as the passing of the Quebec Act in 1774 designed, among other things, to ensure loyalty of Catholic subjects – but also articulations of loyalty to the empire by leading figures in the settlement communities in British North America, thereby elevating the status of Catholics abroad. These processes also say much about the British empire’s reliance on minority groups for its overall success.¹

The acceptance of progressivism within conservatism persisted into and beyond the end of the nineteenth century to demonstrate further that Scottish loyalism was heterogeneous, complex, and bled through porous boundaries. Such conflicting elements are inherently problematic to reconcile, yet in the fusion of repulsive forces, loyalist identities have endured. Scottish loyalism, like the loyalties of other British subjects, was dependent on historical contexts that made it fluid, often adaptable, and capable of forming pragmatic strategies for maintaining communities, properties, and businesses. Those who continued with its cause into the late Victorian age, framed loyalism as a principled challenge to the Anglo-Scottish and Anglo-Irish unions. Here loyalism had become a vehicle for expressing a national identity rooted in the greater legitimacy of birth-right over a parliamentary monarchy and, invariably, over republican revolution. By examining these different strands of Scottish loyalism, some populist, some elitist, these essays reveal the histories of Scots and those of Scottish heritage and the contributions they made to a broad and enduring political movement on both sides of the Atlantic.

Our approach expands on recent historiographical reassessment of loyalism’s waning relevance once the rise of democracy in America and the maturation of democratic societies took hold. In challenging Palmer’s characterisation of pre- and post-revolutionary America marking the arrival of the “age of democratic revolution,” Mason has stressed the non-linearity of the transformation and the persistence of America’s own imperial ambitions to warn against any simplistic notions of sudden change.² Loyalism was no “identity rump” ready to be pushed aside. Even while increasingly challenged, loyalism stood as the norm for the majority until the point when independence was declared.³ Indicators suggest the endurance of loyalist identities was rooted in the very complexity of this political (social, cultural, and economic) position. It leads us to expect difficulty when defining a loyalist if the objective is to establish narrow precision.⁴ Demonstrating the value of a broad definition, one study of petitioners to the Loyalist Claims Commission uncovered an expansive range of declarations projected under the headline of “loyalist.”⁵ Loyalist beliefs were rarely fixed or immutable, with the legal and political structure that underpinned the identity changing under local and national conditions.⁶ Loyalists are marked by their heterogeneity rather than their homogeneity because their experience of the Revolution was as diverse as their reasons for loyalty to the crown.⁷ The very disparateness of this identity was key to its survival and its persistence in America where the greater number of loyalists chose to remain in situ. Nor were those loyalists who moved to Canada and the West Indies – and across the Atlantic to, or remaining within, Scotland, and England – any more orderly in the factors that contributed to their loyalism. These were complex lives shaped by transatlantic exchanges of ideas, of constitutional and civic structures, and by national and religious identities. Scottish loyalism offers a powerful example of this diverse and, the point we stress, often antithetical experience.

Our emphasis on the dualities and multiplicities of Scottish loyalism and the challenge this poses for defining a clearly marked identity is not to muddy the waters but to contribute understanding to an identity that has been erroneously marginalised. Jasanoff is not alone in sensing that loyalists have been “relegated to the margins of mainstream history,”⁸ made unfashionable because their cause – multidimensional as it was – lost ground against the juggernaut of democratic transformation; it was, to put it simply, the losing side. Yet in the Trans-Appalachian West during the revolutionary period – as Matthew Ward shows in this collection – loyalism’s absence from the historiography is at odds with contemporary observations. With many arriving from Carolina and Pennsylvania, this example shows a movement of loyalists from East to West who came in search of personal security. The result was a fecund yet incoherent group presenting their loyalty to the crown in dissimilar ways, but in sufficient numbers to raise concern that a loyalist uprising would prove effective in the 1780s.

This trope of unfashionability within the historiography also carries a reluctance to cast loyalists as victims of the Revolution. Although this term should never be deployed glibly, and many loyalists found ways to prosper within the new political structures, the decline of loyalism is too readily and too neatly attached to those who chose to leave America for Canada or the Caribbean.⁹ Despite this choice being for many an enforced “encouragement to leave” (although the numbers have been disputed), and in this sense exiled, loyalists have been conceptualised as lying behind the historical curve rather than a group whose loyalty to the constitution and crown was excruciated by the winning side.¹⁰

Enough historiographical doubt has been raised to relocate loyalism away from the margins of post-revolutionary America and Britain. After all, this is an identity that has persisted beyond its assumed demise. The first stage of this reassessment comes from conceiving loyalism not as an alternative national identity on either side of the Atlantic but as an identity derived from the fluctuating trans-Atlantic relationship.¹¹ We are invited by Blackstock and O’Gorman to conceive loyalism within the Atlantic world as multi-layered and multi-nation in scope.¹² In taking up this invitation, we look to reassess the transmutation of Scottish loyalism through its conceptualisation as an identity that persisted beyond its principal time and parameters.

Jacobitism, progressivism and self-determination

The Scottish Highlanders’ contribution to loyalism during the Revolutionary War was substantial, comprising an estimated 10% of the loyalist units from an estimated 40% of its settler community.¹³ The example of Allan MacDonald (1722–1792), husband of the Jacobite heroine Flora MacDonald (1722–1790), shows this to have had domestic significance. Having emigrated from Skye to join other family members at Cheek’s Creek in Montgomery County in 1774, MacDonald joined the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants) along with both his son and his son-in-law.¹⁴ Imprisoned in 1776 after defeat to Revolutionary forces at Moore’s Creek Bridge, Allan MacDonald’s loyalism represents both a mundane story of scratching a living on whichever side of the Atlantic offered the best prospects, and a life course carried by an imperial mission – if Dziennik’s analysis is followed – that reveals how identity was constructed and projected during the Revolutionary War.¹⁵ Having lost their cattle and horses in 1770 and faced by their creditors’ demands Flora MacDonald had written of how hopeless was the family’s farming life on Skye. This articulation of misfortune anticipated the personal investment required to restart their lives in Cheek’s Creek, and the level of commitment and hard work it would take to rise above the subsistence diet that had become their recent fate.¹⁶ Yet their return to Scotland, first Flora in 1779 and then Allan in 1784, was prompted by the paucity of recompense Allan received for service to the crown, and their subsistence back on Skye was only being made possible by the financial support of their son John.¹⁷ The MacDonalds’ imperial identity was rooted in economic stability long sought and unlikely to be replaced if lost. In a similar vein those lowlanders who had attained regular, and for some investors, significant economic gains shaped their loyalism through the prism of economic pragmatism that was embodied in lucrative transatlantic relationships. In 1760s’ Glasgow, loyalism represented social order and a version of steady government that brought wealth to the city from the tobacco trade with Virginia and Maryland. Glasgow, Dundee, and Paisley played a key transnational role in colonialism, with Dundee’s merchants not alone in withholding their support from those who campaigned to abolish the slave trade.¹⁸ Growing concern and in some cases panic that the tobacco and textile trades would be lost after 1778 led in turn to a more aggressive stance in defence of Britishness and Protestantism.¹⁹

In both cases, on both sides of the Atlantic, the economic dimension to this transatlantic identity was mired in local and national politics that cautions against searching for either linearity or singularity within loyalism. Just as Highlanders did not comprise all Scottish migrants, Jacobitism was not a national movement, and plans to restore the Stuarts to the imperial throne gained support only amongst a certain group of loyalists who cleaved north Britishness with English constitutional history.²⁰ The number of Gaelic-speaking Scots who fought on the Hanoverian side in opposition to Jacobites should not be ignored.²¹ Nor can we accept that attempts to restore the Stuart line were motived by attempts to restore a Gaelic or feudal expression of Highland society. At the time of the Revolutionary War, loyalism was a route to pouring Scotland (and England) into the British melting pot, binding a Protestant monarchy to the commercial and geo-political gains of Empire.²²

Conservatism also remains central to explaining the persistence of popular royalism.²³ The Revolution was a civil war that involved two sides whose political, economic, and social agenda did not disappear after 1789. Loyalism carried an in-built conservative longing for what was lost, offering an alternative to republicanism for those who sought social and international stability. Brad A. Jones has observed that following the American Revolution British political culture pivoted towards a more authoritarian form of conservatism.²⁴ Plus, there is contradictory evidence that these post-1770s loyalists were splintered and became characterised as “oddly embarrassing outcasts” in Britain.²⁵ Yet outcasts, outlaws, and revolutionaries are often overlapping terms in the post-Revolutionary period.

Loyalism helped carry and spread Protestantism out to the Empire, and across the British Atlantic the obligation to monarchical government was promoted as the best means to defend rights and liberties in the modern age.²⁶ Through this resistance, conservatism and monarchism would continue to challenge the principles upon which democracy was advanced. A century after the Revolutionary War, loyalism’s rejection of the 1701 Hanoverian settlement was predicated on its enfeeblement of Britain’s constitutional monarchy. By evoking the greater legitimacy of birth-right over parliamentary monarchy – of the de jure sovereign, divinely appointed, over the de facto sovereign­ – loyalists recast what the crown and parliamentary democracy should look like in the democratic age.

The contributors to this collection of essays take different approaches to exploring the persistence of Scottish loyalism in the British Atlantic world. Firstly, the contrasting experience of loyalists during the Revolutionary period is examined. The choice made by significant numbers of loyalists in the region west of the Appalachian Mountains to remain unmoved during the Revolutionary War and, significantly, in its aftermath provides the evidence for Matthew Ward’s analysis of an understated strand of conservatism. Contemporary awareness that “a heap of Tories” was to be found living in in the region during the late 1770s must be seen alongside a social situation that facilitated those sympathetic to loyalism to reduce their visibility. This was a geographical area from which it was difficult to flee, and revolutionary commanders feared the potential for those loyalists remaining in position to coordinate with Indigenous raiding parties. Loyalist bands did form to support the British cause in North Carolina, but otherwise they tended to remain quiet for fear of reprisal. Importantly, Ward argues, there were few occasions when loyalists would be outed or forced to declare a public oath of loyalty. Not only did the Scots and other loyalists have little engagement with British forces, but their invisibility was underscored as they comprised those of lower social class than loyalists found in other territories. This was no example of economically significant loyalists whose ownership of property raised the ire of revolutionaries. Instead, Trans-Appalachian loyalism was something of an insipid identity. Its maintenance was owed to the loyalists’ co-existence with the Revolutionaries in a common cause more important to them than the Revolution: their common opposition to the Native American inhabitants of the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region. The ill-defined version of loyalism found in this region offers a rich example of how loyalists were able to re-integrate into society as the Revolutionary cause wavered under local circumstances. Here loyalism persisted as a shadow identity that was only infrequently forced into the light whence it might wither.

A further insertion into mainstream historiography of a form of loyalism recognised by contemporaries, but underplayed by historians, comes from Kimberly Sherman’s examination of the reprisals experienced by loyalist Scotswomen in North Carolina. Where Ward has stressed the persistence of loyalism within the practicalities of daily life in the backcountry, Sherman’s analysis of gender, ethnicity, and region examines loyalism that was more exposed and, consequently, under greater insidious and oftentimes explicit threat. In North Carolina, the Scottish loyalists tended to be both Highlanders and the more recent immigrants, labels attached to those known as likely supporters of the crown. Political positions were more entrenched on the eastern side of the Appalachians, and the example of the frightening treatment received by Ann and Cullen Pollock, harassed as Scots for their loyalism, was in part fuelled by Scotophobia. There was little opportunity for coalescence here, with Scots in North Carolina labelled pejoratively as loyalists whether they stood unequivocally for the crown or whether their commitment was half-hearted or neutral.

The suggestion that loyalism was heterogeneous and open to different drivers is perhaps greater for women than for men. Loyalist men who benefited from commercial ties became an obvious target for revolutionaries. The anti-loyalist legislation passed in North Carolina impacted upon the merchant community and the families of the Highland Scots who fought on the loyalist side. Refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the republic in 1777 resulted in loyalists having their properties confiscated by the state. The consequence of this loss was especially hard for the women and families of the men being punished, finds Sherman. There was little protection from harassment and plundering, with Flora MacDonald being a high-profile casualty of such vexations while her husband remained imprisoned. Adding further pain, the loss of property was frequently accompanied by separation from one’s children, with loyalist women’s movement curtailed. Even if claiming neutrality, women married to loyalists were thought prone to passing on information to their husbands by those who cast them equally as dangerous as those who were on active service.

Loyalist Scotswomen’s principled views on the crown and constitution were surely tested when left to deal with the immediate challenge of property loss and personal harassment while attempting to maintain some semblance of their pre-revolutionary colonial lives. Back home, in Scotland’s Court of Session, loyalists called upon Edinburgh’s lawyers to make decisions on which of them had had their property confiscated. Focusing on the British conquest of Charleston, South Carolina in the spring of 1780, James Ambuske’s analysis for this collection examines the case of Colin Campbell, the brother-in-law of both deposed Royal Governor William Campbell and South Carolina revolutionary Ralph Izard. Colin Campbell possessed a transatlantic estate – including land and enslaved labourers – estimated at over £26,000. His case highlights those Scottish loyalists who remained or who looked to return after expulsion, but who in Scotland sought legal recourse for their misfortune. Campbell himself fled to Britain after his property was confiscated, but returned and died a broken man in Charleston. Upon his death a legacy he had established was processed in Scotland’s Court of Session, and Ambuske’s contribution examines this and several legal resolutions reached by loyalists. By placing these dilemmas in their transatlantic legal context loyalists sought to define the extent to which the British state recognised American sovereignty and inter alia their own personal loyalty within that framework. This, Ambuske shows, was a two-way strategy of using the Scottish courts to defend loyalists in America, but to use loyalty to George III as a legal strategy to attain a favourable outcome in those courts.

These legal claims point to the importance of exploring what it meant in Scotland to be a loyalist. Most Scots were indifferent towards or opposed the Jacobites during the uprising of 1745–1746, and support for the Stuart cause within England and Ireland was again outnumbered by those who were loyal to the Hanoverian crown, a starting off point for Nicola Martin’s contribution. The 1740s through to the 1780s was a period when “othering” Jacobite followers by Lowland and other Scots helped deepen and shape loyalism. Yet antithetically, these Scots also made efforts to bring Highlanders, including Jacobites, into supporting loyalism elsewhere in the British Atlantic world.

While individual expressions of loyalism remain largely unrecorded, Martin has examined those people for whom personal loyalty to their chief induced their loyalism to the crown. These individuals might then have benefited from their rent arrears being written off or from flexibility on future rent payments. For some ordinary clansman, loyalism was weighted towards a transactional devotion, an observation that goes some way to explaining the persistent distrust within the British army towards the Highland soldier. The offer of public offices and commissions did most to tie Highland elites to the Hanoverian crown. As well as this loyalty sometimes taking precedence over loyalty to the family or clan, loyalism underpinned the commitment of those Highlanders involved in the military control of the region in the aftermath of the 1745 uprising. Martin identifies the role of the military surveyors under William Roy as a tangible manifestation of this control along with the road building programme and the construction of Fort George that followed. Agricultural improvement was also advanced as a “civilizing” process of reform, inculcating loyalty to the Hanoverians through the political economy of agricultural improvement and a weakening of the ties of feudalism.

Recruitment to the British military brought Highland soldiers into the defence of the empire to the extent that, while distrusted by some at home, “Highlanders were held up as an exemplar of imperial loyalty” in comparison with other British people in the British Atlantic world. The importance of Highland loyalty in Canada, and its comparative influence, informs Katie Louise McCullough’s analysis of Highlanders’ defence of empire within British North America. With the time frame shifted to the 1840s, in McCullough’s contribution we encounter evidence of the ongoing conflict between loyalism and republicanism through the building of a massive, monumental cairn on a tiny island in the St Lawrence River by the local Glengarry (Highlanders) Militia. These soldiers were stationed in eastern Upper Canada and western Lower Canada during the Rebellions of 1837–1838, the violent culmination in the Canadas between two different visions of society. Though officially raised to commemorate their supreme commanding officer, Sir John Colborne, and to acknowledge the role the Glengarry Highlanders played in the final suppression of the Rebellions, the Glengarry Cairn – as a loyalist monument – also represented broader articulations of Highland Scottish loyalty in the British Atlantic world. For the local Scottish-Canadian community at Glengarry, their connection to the Glengarry Highlanders and the multilayered meanings of the cairn, placed them within an enduring legacy of transatlantic Highland Scottish loyalism that extended back to the mid-eighteenth century.

In each contribution to this collection, loyalism takes strength from the malleability and pragmatism of its adherents. Yet the principle of loyalty to the crown remained at the heart of parliamentary democracy at the time of the American Revolution as it still did when the British Empire reached its peak in the first quarter of the twentieth century. In his contribution to this collection, Graeme Morton shows that this principle sustained the neo-Jacobite phase of the movement at the end of the nineteenth century. Even when marginalised within electoral politics, its mix of legitimism and Jacobitism placed loyalism within the contemporaneous constitutional debates on rights, freedoms, and the limits of governmental power that defined the campaigns in Scotland and Ireland for home rule.

Finding a solution to a misfiring constitution by those who politicised loyalism meant recentring the crown at the heart of government and giving it greater legitimacy to govern. This was to be done by restoring the House of Stuart as the senior line, its claim established through birth-right, not act of parliament. To restore the Stuarts required a constitutional shift away from “the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and her Heirs of her Body, being Protestants … ,” and removing the constitutional requirement of that religion. Explicitly and unequivocally, the second article of the Anglo-Scottish Union excluded Roman Catholics from inheriting the throne: “ … all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part thereof.”²⁷ The loyalism carried by the legitimist cause rejected this constitutional configuration by arguing against any political union predicated upon the removal of hereditary right to the crown. Bemoaning ineffective government, and fearing anarchists, republicans, and revolutionaries whom they characterised as the rising threats to world order, legitimists sought government by a higher authority than a mere parliamentary monarch. Loyalism came from God and stood in distinction to the deliberations of parliamentarians who had taken it upon themselves to choose Sophia and her Protestant descendants. This movement took support from elsewhere in Europe where Catholic royal houses were similarly passed over: claiming common cause with the Royal House of Savoy and those Houses and Families of Orléans, Lorraine, Salm, Ursel, Bourbon, Conti and Modena.²⁸ This broad campaign was built on the “faith of legitimism” as a transcendent principle in itself, wherein loyalists conceived of themselves as “the English branch of a Catholic or universal party.”²⁹ In Scotland, the movement’s Jacobites were fixed on restoring the House of Stuart as a key element of any reform of the Imperial parliament brought forward in the context of home rule, whereas from this base their English brethren further projected their loyalism through Carlism and a steadfast belief in legitimism across the world.³⁰

In loyalism’s continuing post-revolutionary challenge to republicanism, the strongest model of government would arise if the legitimacy of the crown was re-established and strengthened on hereditary not parliamentary terms. It was a high risk, indeed (counter-) revolutionary way forward, involving alliances that cut across groups who in other contexts were opposed to the crown or any challenge to the political Union of 1707. As each of the contributors to this collection makes plain, loyalism has been the embodiment of a disparate and multifaceted identity sustained in different ways, in different locations, and in different periods by the fusion of repulsive forces. Not narrow and defensive, Scottish loyalism was a broad and far-reaching rejection of – to use Sir John Colborne’s term from 1839 – “a dark conspiracy” of revolutionaries. A common thread lies in the principle of the crown in Parliament, and the British Atlantic world provides the context to determine when that principle was revolutionary or conservative.

Acknowledgements

This collection of essays has resulted from the willingness of a group of transatlantic historians to share their research in a spirit of collaboration, and to maintain patience in the pursuit of a multi-headed approach to a diverse and nuanced historical problem. We are grateful for their enthusiasm when answering our call, and for all the hard work involved in their examination of Scottish loyalism in the British Atlantic world.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katie Louise McCullough

Katie Louise McCullough is a researcher for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. She is the former Director for the Centre for Scottish Studies (2015–2020) and Shadbolt Fellow in the Humanities (2015–2020) at Simon Fraser University. Her forthcoming co-authored monograph, Mohawks and Scots in Early Canada, will be published by Edinburgh University Press.

Graeme Morton

Graeme Morton is Professor of Modern History at the University of Dundee. He is the author of several books on Scottish national identity, nationalism, and emigration, including Weather, Migration and the Scottish Diaspora: Leaving the Cold Country (Routledge, 2021), William Wallace: A National Tale (Edinburgh University Press, 2014), Ourselves and Others: Scotland 1832–1914 (Edinburgh University Press, 2012), and Unionist-Nationalism: Governing Urban Scotland, 1830–1860 (Tuckwell Press, 1999).

Notes

1 Bélanger, “Loyalty, Order, and Quebec’s Catholic Hierarchy,” 36–52; Kehoe, “Catholic Relief,” 2–7; Kehoe, “Catholic Highland Scots,” 80–81. For more on Irish Catholics and the British empire see: McGowan, “Canadian Catholics, Loyalty, and the British Empire.”

2 Mason, “Loyalism in British North America,” 164.

3 Ibid., 165.

4 Ranlet, “How Many American Loyalists Left?,” 296.

5 Jones, “Steadily Attached to His Majesty?,” 163–198.

6 Ibid., 165.

7 Mason, “The American Loyalist Problem of Identity,” 42.

8 Jasanoff, “The Other Side of Revolution,” 206

9 Ibid., 207–208.

10 Ranlet, “How Many American Loyalists Left?,” 296–306.

11 Bannister and Riordan, “Loyalism and the British Atlantic,” 3–4. Morton and Bueltmann, “Partners in Empire,” 210–216.

12 Blackstock and O’Gorman, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World, 1–2.

13 Dziennik, “Through an Imperial Prism,” 332–333.

14 Douglas, “MacDonald, Flora (1722–1790).”

15 Dziennik, “Through an Imperial Prism,” 335.

16 MacDonald, “Letters, 1772.”

17 Douglas, “MacDonald, Flora (1722–1790).”

18 Tuckett and Whatley, “Textiles in Transition,” 42–46.

19 Jones, Resisting Independence, 218.

20 Kidd, “Britishness,” 382.

21 Dziennik, “‘Armailt làidir de mhilìsidh’,” 171–172.

22 Blackstock and O’Gorman, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World, 8–9.

23 Echeverri, “Monarchy, Empire, and Popular Politics,” 18; Jones, Resisting Independence, 2.

24 Ibid., 3–4, 209.

25 Bannister and Riordan, “Loyalism and the British Atlantic,” 6.

26 Blackstock and Gorman, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World, 2; Jones, Resisting Independence, 209–210.

27 Union with England, Act 1707 (1707 r.7), article 2.

28 “Aims and objectives of the Legitimist Jacobite League,” Belfast Newsletter, 9 June 1892, 4.

29 Anon, “The Carlists,” 106–119.

30 Ruvigny and Raineval, and Metcalfe “Legitimism in England,” 362.