Liberty's Exiles

Maya Jasanoff. Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World. New York: Vintage Books, 2011.

The American Revolution was also, in many ways, a civil war. This was likely especially true for the loyalist minority, who experienced the war as a betrayal of their own sense of British identity. Loyalists, Jasanoff shows, were not the conservative reactionaries of contemporary rhetoric or posthumous remembrance. Instead, they often took views on the relationship between provincial subjects and the British government which were remarkably similar to that staked out by the Patriot Whigs. What defined them, ultimately, was loyalty not conservatism.

This study of the roughly 60,000 loyalists--white, free black, and American Indian--who chose to leave the newly independent United States in the wake of the 1783 Treaty traces their exodus around the growing, changing British Empire--what became Canada, the Bahamas, East Florida, Jamaica, Britain itself, Sierra Leone, India--it was a global diaspora, and often involved multiple stops before the exiles (not a few of whom ultimately returned to a United States which by fits and starts became more welcoming to its prodigal subjects-turned-citizens).

By 1815, this process was largely over--the exiles who were still alive were largely dead. During the roughly 30 years of exile, the loyalists had played an outsized role in the creation of a new British Empire, and had also been part of a larger process of constitutional and political development. The British Empire, in contrast to the Republicanism of the United States and France on the one hand, and  the despotism of so many other powers on the other, would be marked by a peculiarly British form of liberal, paternal imperialism.  The loyalist exiles contributed greatly to this development.

By studying the loyalists and following them after most American histories turn away from them, the American Revolution and the development of early American Republican citizenship can be seen in a new light, in contrast to the loyalist exile experience as they struggled to find new homes in the empire they gave up so much in order to remain loyal to.

The Internal Enemy

Alan Taylor. The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.

Alan Taylor's last two books--The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies, and The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution, were both excellent examples of borderland history. Given that this book is set in Virginia, at the heart of the early American Republic, it may seem that his latest work has moved on from that emphasis. But the "Virginia" of the title is really, in many ways, the Chesapeake watershed, and the larger time frame of the title actually frames the much more condensed period when the core of this books' action takes place--the War of 1812. Taylor recounts the history of the British military policy of accepting--and eventually seeking out and encouraging--runaway slaves as military strategy. First tried on a limited scale towards the end of the Revolution, the policy was revived during the War of 1812. The policy had enormous repercussions both for enslaved people and for white Virginians far out of proportion to the actual number of slaves who did manage to escape. This is, in other words, a different kind of "borderland history"--one where the frontier was waterborne, but also where the zone of interaction involved not only competing sovereign entities but also conflicting notions of freedom.

Taylor makes clear the extent to which slaves in the Chesapeake region had intimate knowledge of the regional terrain, as well as nocturnal freedom of movement within their larger neighborhoods that their white owners and neighbors neither fully understood nor controlled. Slaves, forced to work under supervision and duress during the daytime, took advantage of nighttime darkness to carry out visits to neighboring farms and plantations to maintain family ties and other relationships, as well as to carry out social and religious functions and obtain extra foodstuffs and other supplies through theft, pilfering, and other covert means.

Because of this--as well as the fact that many slaves were employed as fishermen, pilots, and sailors--runaway slaves had real military value to the British forces patrolling the Chesapeake. The British sought not only to maintain a blockade, but also to engage in constant raiding in order to acquire needed supplies as well as demoralize and punish Virginian Republicans. Regarding the latter--the British commanders were able to obtain detailed information about the political loyalties of individual Americans, and therefore could choose to punish Republicans for presumably supporting the war effort while sparing Federalists who presumably opposed it. This divide-and-conquer strategy sought to pacify the local population, many of whom were distressed at the failure of the Federal government to provide protection, and thereby undermine American resolve.

This strategy heavily relied on the help of runaway slaves for information, scouting, and providing guidance through tangled waterways and hidden pathways through the countryside. But while the British initially only wanted a handful of individual slaves, particularly pilots, the slaves themselves had other ideas. Family ties were very important to slaves, and given that the declining economy in Virginia had hastened the breakup of slave families through sales of individual slaves further west and south, many slaves realized that if they did not rescue their family members right away, their families could be split apart for good.

So the impetus to escape as family units rather than as individuals was not only strong, it was urgent. The British eventually made a positive of the situation, embracing the idea that all runaways became free once they reached the 'sovereign territory' of a British warship as both a moral good and excellent propaganda to use against the hypocritical Americans, who claimed to fight for freedom while doing everything in their power to keep their slaves from achieving freedom for themselves.

Eventually, the British commanders in the area would create a special corps of marines from these runaways, a military unit which fought with great effectiveness and contributed greatly to British success in the region--culminating in the sack of Washington, DC.

The larger story Taylor tells is how these events fueled the pathological fears of slave revolts which were a constant subtext to Virginia's slave-holding culture, and which eventually doomed emancipation in the state and led more and more white Virginians to silence and abandon earlier qualms about the institution in favor of a more hardline pro-slavery stance, or at least a cynical accommodation to its continued necessity. Only a few thousand slaves managed to escape to the British during this time, but the psychological blow to white Virginians sense of security--as well as to the comforting myths of slaves as docile, content, and weak--was immense.