Guide to research

Download 1.47 Mb.
Size1.47 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

23. i. ?John, b. ca. 1735; m. Aeltje Cronkite.

24. ii. ?Peter, b. ca. 1740; m. (as 2nd?) Catherine (Wiltsie) Holland.

25. iii. ?Stephen, b. ca. 1742-45; m. Elizabeth Vincent.

26. iv. ?Aaron.

v. Anna, bp. 26 Aug. 1753.88

vi. Jacob, bp. 13 April 1755. This was about eight months before John Ferguson’s presumed sister Anna married Jacob

Cronkite, his presumed wife’s brother, and this child may have been named in his honor. Jacob refused to sign AofA in

Beekman in 1775. He was on the tax roll in Beekman in 1778 and was assessed at £2.

Jacob Forgeson (sic) was on the tax roll for Saratoga West District, Albany Co., NY in 1786. He was in the same place in

1787 as Ferguson and in Stillwater (part of Saratoga became Stillwater 7 March 1788) in 1788. Jacob Ferguson was in

Saratoga Town, Albany Co., NY in 1790 at 1-3-7 between Jonathan Lawrence and Stephen Velie. In 1800 he was in

Saratoga Town, Saratoga Co. (same place as before, the county had been erected in 1791), at 2-1-2-1-1 and 1-3-1-1-0

between Edy Baker Jr. and Ebenezer Fitch.

3. Sgt Richard Ferguson U.E.

Ferguson, Richard Senr. Marysburgh & Sophiasburgh

A pensioner. L.B.M. 1791. 550 acres. P.L. 1786 (Listed Reid, no township.)
In the Kings Rangers. In Canada in 1778 at St Johns, Quebec.

Quartered at St. Johns under Major Nairne March 1 1781. Age 53.


FD- "Sergt Richard Ferguson was on a return of Disbanded Troops and Loyalists settled in Cataraqui Township No. 3

(Fredericksburgh, CN) on 6 Oct. 1784. The roll notes “his land not run out” and he was there with one woman. He was

listed at this location again in 1785. As Richard Ferguson Sr. he was there between 1st July and 31st August 1786. Jacob

Ferguson was one away on the list. Richard Ferguson, Pensioner, was on a “General Return of Refugee Loyalists in the

Province of Quebec Exclusive of those Quartered and residing in the Upper Posts”. This return was ca. Sept. 1783.94 A

Richard Ferguson was awarded 550 acres as a pensioner.

i. Rozel.

ii. Phebe, bp. 9 Sept. 1759 at Rombout Presbyterian Church in DC.

[RPCh.]. There is no further record of Phebe and she may have died young.

iii. Israel, b. ca. 1760. He was on the roll for Disbanded Troops (etc.) in Cataraqui 6 Oct. 1784 with himself, one woman

and two servants. A note in the roll states: “On his way up to the Kings Lands.” Richard Ferguson Jr. was three away

from him on this list. He was also listed in Cataraqui in 1785 as Lieut. Israel Ferguson. In

July-August 1786 he was also on this roll but with one female over 10 years, in addition to himself and his wife. He

presented the case for his father and brothers, as noted above, and was a witness for

other applicants: On 27 Feb. 1786 he appeared at the Commission in Montreal to testify in behalf of Gysbert Sharpe who

“possessed part of the Patent of Kinderhook under his father’s will.”

Israel Ferguson testified: “Remembers that in 1776 G. Sharpe was possessed of good house and Barn, and Farm of 200

acres and more. There was 30 or 40 acres cleared and under good Improvmnts. He had Negro Wench, and Cattle about

his Farm. He lived comfortably and well.” He produced a certificate in the case of Stephen and Daniel Burritt of

Arlington, VT in favor of their getting a claim. The record shows at Montreal, 28 Jan. 1788:

“Produces certificate from Lieut. Ferguson that Claim’t served 3 yrs. & to his having discharged his Duty as a good

soldier & subject on every occasion.” He was on a Muster Roll of 27 Jan. 1784 of Officers and Non-Commissioned

Officers of the King’s Rangers. He was the Lieut. in Major’s Company, Capt. James

Breakenridge. There were only four volunteers in this company; Richard, Farrington, Arra and Robert Ferguson. He may

have married Nancy Singleton and he died 1790 without children.

iv. Richard, b. ca. 1763. He was on the roll for Cataraqui 6 Oct. 1784. He was listed with one woman, no children. A

note stated: “in Canada”. He was listed there in 1785 and in 1786 when he was listed same. He was next to Jonathan

Ferguson on the roll. Richard was born in NY, was 20 years old and was in a muster 1 Jan. 1783 at

St. Johns.

v. Farrington, b. ca. 1765; m. Elizabeth Cole.

vi. Millicent, b. 4 May 1766; m. 1st Jacob Hover of Adolphustown 19 May 1789, 2nd Conrad Van Duzen of

Adolphustown, 31 July 1791. She died 7 April 1829. She had son Jacob Hoover b. 1790 who m. Margaret Steel.

Millicent had eleven children by VanDusen who was b. 23 April 1751 near Dover, DC, son of Robert and Christina

(Ham) Van Dusen.

vii. Jacob.

viii. Arra, b. ca. 1769; m. Catherine Shorts.

ix. Rachel, b. 1782; m. Richard Hare of Sophiasburgh 20 June 1797.

They had dau. Rachel Hare who m. William Bell."


"Mr. VanDusen's grandfather was an old veteran, settled with the sons on Ferguson's Point. One one occasion, they went

up the country in a log canoe in the woods to Hallowell Bay (site of Picton Glenwood Cemetery) Here gone on this

distant trip some time returned and pronounced the place inhabitable. ""It will never be settled in Man's time, nothing but

a mosquito hole"" Has been shown the spot where they landed in the head of the bay." (From Canniff's notes)

[Frontier Spies -- The British Secret Service, 1971 Hazel C. Mathews]--- "Richard Ferguson was a Scot who had been in

America since 1757" (Ft. George and Ft.Edward) (This probably should refer to Richard Jr or Israel Ferguson. PDC)

FD- RICHARD FERGUSON JR., (Richard3, Thomas2, John1), was probably born ca. 1723-25 and married ?Rachel __

_ and was an early settler of Nine Partners, DC.

On 10 Jan. 1745 he was a witness on a deed in lot 32 for 3412 acres. [D3:422].

He had a daughter born locally in 1759.

In 1759 Bartholomew Hogaboom of Beekman sued Richard Ferguson and was awarded £40. [Sept. 1759 Writs].

Mary Hogaboom, administratrix, sued Richard Ferguson 40 Oct. 1760. [Writs].

James Adams and Mary his wife, late Mary Hogaboom, administrators of the estate of Bartholomew Hogaboom,

dec’d, sued Richard Ferguson. [CP Oct. 1761].

He (or his father) recorded his ear mark in Crum Elbow 21 Jan. 1750/51; a crop in the left ear and two half pennies

under the right ear. The mark was transferred to Aron Boughten 25 Dec. 1767.90

He kept an account at the Schenk store and on 3 Nov. 1764 he bought rum, a pair of shoes and 2 yards of cloth. [Day

Book ‘B’ 134].

His account, as kept in Ledger ‘B’, ran from 17 July 1764 through 4 Nov. 1766. He charged sundries and “2 felt

hattes” and paid with sundries, a book and bushels of wheat for a total of £3/2/10 and took out a note for his balance of

£11/19/2. [Ledger ‘A’ 261]. His account included purchases made 24 June 1765 of 19s 3p for soap and other items. [Day

Book ‘B’ 536].

Richard Forkinson (sic) bought rum and pins at the Mabbett store ca. 1762.
A road description of 1768 noted he was near the road to Filkintown. [CEPR 71].

He left the Nine Partners area before the Revolution and settled near Fort Edward and was referred to as Richard Sr.

in Loyalist records.

Another account notes: “The Fergusons were natives of America who lived at Fort Edward, where they owned a farm

of 300 acres in partnership with their father, also called Richard. The brothers claimed a loss of £388 sterling and rec’d

£48 Sterling.” [LAR]. The father gave a deposition 20 Nov. 1787 to the effect that his son’s testimony was correct. [ALC


His wife was probably the Rachel Ferguson mentioned in the minutes of the Albany Committee 8 Sept. 1779: “Rachel

Ferguson having been some time since Confined for harbouring & entertaining a Number of Tories who come down from

Canada with an intention of Murdering the Defenseless Inhabitants on the Western Frontiers of this State, was brought

before the Board[;] ordered that she be liberated from Confinement on entering into a Recognizance for her future Good

Behavior and appearance at the next Court of General Sessions of the peace to be Held for the City & County of Albany

at the City Hall of the said City on the first Tuesday in October & then & there to answer to such charges as shall be

alleged against her & not to depart the Court without Leave.

Rachel Ferguson on Recognizance in £200

Robert Yates her bail in £200

Nicholas Howe Do £200

Stephen Howe Do £200”

Sergt Richard Ferguson was on a return of Disbanded Troops and Loyalists settled in Cataraqui Township No. 3

(Fredericksburgh, CN) on 6 Oct. 1784. The roll notes “his land not run out” and he was there with one woman. He was

listed at this location again in 1785.

As Richard Ferguson Sr. he was there between 1st July and 31st August 1786. Jacob Ferguson was one away on the


Richard Ferguson, Pensioner, was on a “General Return of Refugee Loyalists in the Province of Quebec Exclusive of

those Quartered and residing in the Upper Posts”. This return was ca. Sept. 1783.

A Richard Ferguson was awarded 550 acres as a pensioner.


“Richard Ferguson was taken prisoner in 1777 on Lake George while on way to Ticonderoga and, with several other

prisoners, put on board a batteau ordered to center of American fleet. Because the night was dark and stormy they were

able to escape; he went to Diamond Point to give warning of rebel intentions. After Burgoyne’s defeat he went to Canada;

was employed to gather intelligence in the colonies. Claim: Houses at Jessup’s Burgh and Carmon’s Neck, Albany Co.,

etc.” [American Loyalist Claims, Coldham, 153].


The majority of American historians have been unfair to the Loyalists.

They have spoken of them with scorn and ridicule; they have called them weak, because they submitted to "tyranny";

they have called them cowards, because they refused to fight the British they have called them unnatural, because they

took up arms against their countrymen; and they have called them the dregs of society, because they had spirit enough to

seek a new home under British rule.

American writers have further unfairiy questioned the motives of the Loyalists. They have denied to their enemies that

freedom of choice which they reserved to themselves; they have charged the loyalists with being "Tory office-holders";

they have declared that the possession of offices of emolument from the Crown was the sole reason which prevented

these "office-holders" from taking up arms in company with the "victims of Britain's injustice." On the other hand,

according to these writers no eulogy is too strong, no commemoration is too extensive for the "Patriots" who, in the face

of fearful odds, swept the British army from the plains of Yorktown, and planted the standard of liberty on the erstwhile

down-trodden and benighted land.
A more impartial age has brushed away the deception of a century. The honor of the Loyalists has been amply vindicated.

It is seen that those who were called weak, were strong enough to leave all they held dear for the sake of principle; those

who were called cowards, fought to the bitter end of a losing struggle; those who were called unnatural, were not as

unnatural as the matricidal sons who took up arms against the Motherland; and those who were called in malicious hatred

the outcasts of society, have since been acknowledged the brightest and best of their age.
It is noticeable that the bulk of the Loyalists were men in no mean positions in their native states; men who possessed a

high moral ideal and an elevated mind, men of education and of unsullied honor. Even American historians are now

coming to admit that they were of the noblest descent and of the most upright character. Colonel Sabine says, in his well

known work, "It is evident that a considerable proportion of the professional and editorial intelligence and talents of the

thirteen colonies was arrayed against the popular movement." (Vol. I, p. 50)

And we have others. Dr. Geo. E. Ellis, in the "Narrative and Critical History of America," (page 186), says, "Among

those most frank and fearless in the avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties, - were men of the noblest

character and highest position."

And Mr. M. C. Tyler, writing in the American Historical Review, so lately as October, 1895, says, "To any one at all

familiar with the history of colonial New England, that list of men, denounced to exile and loss of property on account of

their opinions, will read like the head roll of the oldest and noblest families concerned in the founding and upholding of

New England civilization; and of the whole body of the Loyalists throughout the thirteen colonies, it must be said that it

contained more than a third of influential characters, that is, a very considerable portion of the customary chiefs in each


Nearly all the clergy were Loyalists. "Fear God, Honor the King," was their unvarying doctrine. Lawyers, judges and

physicians also, in a great number, were ranged on the side of loyalty, men of education and refinement and of deep

religions conviction, the moral tone of whose lives put to shame even that of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of


So much for the general character of the Loyalists. Let us consider their motives. To charge them with being all office-

holders under the Crown is false on the face of it, because upwards of thirty-five thousand came to Canada after the war,

and it is absurd to suppose that even one-tenth of that number remained faithful to the king from mercenary motives.

And if the Loyalists had been influenced by monetary considerations they would probably have deserted the ship before

the final plunge, and made overtures of friendship and reconciliation to the victorious party. Base and sordid men are not

the kind who are willing to leave rich and luxurious homes on the banks of the Hudson and the Delaware, for a cabin in a

northern wilderness, and scarcity and hardship withal.
Those of the New Englanders who remained faithful to the old flag possessed all the ardor of a lofty patriotisin. With an

unswerving trust in the fundamental justice of the British Government, they believed that the misunderstandings were

only temporary and would be removed. They believed that most of the disaffected were laboring under an erroneous idea

of oppression and an egregious conceit of their own importance and to the last they remained true to their conviction that

to take up arms against the Mother Country was high treason, and morally as well as legally wrong.

From the very beginning the Loyalists were looked upon with the disfavor with which evildoers always regard those who

do not approve of their actions. They were the objects of suspicion. All their movements were watched. They were even

forbidden the ancient British right of public meeting and the freedom of the press, and were liable to arrest and

imprisonment at any moment, without the right of habeas corpus.
The Declaration of Independence forced the choice of either one side or the other. Previously both parties bad been,

nominally at least, at one in their allegiance to the British Crown; but now it was open war and no neutrality. In many

states Congress gave the legislative, executive and judicial powers over to committees, who often improperly used their

authority under the specious veil of patriotism.

[Dr. Ramsey, "History of United States," Vol II, Chap. 26, p 467]
These dealt at pleasure with the rights and liberties, and even lives, of the hated "Tories." To crush liberty of speech and

opinion, to reduce the Loyalists to the position of slaves or proscribed aliens, under penalties of imprisoninent,

banishment, and even death, was a startling contradiction to their high-sounding declaration, "All men are born free and

equal." The Loyalists were exposed to all sorts of indignities and to wanton insult, such as being tarred and feathered,

their cattle were sometimes horribly mutilated, their barns burned, and neither life nor property was safe.

[Dr. Canniff, "Settlement of Upper Canada, p. 55.

Sabine, "American Loyalists" Vol. I, p. 75.]
The rule of the mob was dominant. A letter from John Adams, then at Amsterdam, in 1780, to the Lieutenant-Governor

of Massachusetts, says, "I think their (the Loyalists') career might have been stopped if the executive officers had not

been so timid in a point which I strenuously recommended from the first, namely, to fine, imprison and hang all inimical

to the cause, without favor or affection. I would have hanged my own brother if he had taken part with the enemy in the


[Dr. Ryerson, "Loyalists of America and their Times," Vol II, p. 127.]

This advice of Adams was followed by Lieutenant-Governor Cushing, and many instances are on record of unjust and

cruel persecution.

Bodies of vagabonds roamed about the state, destroying the property of the Loyalists, imprisoning the suspected, and

seizing the goods of those unable to defend themselves. A nefarious band dubbed themselves "Sons of Liberty," and

carried bloodshed and rapine to peaceful homes. Their victims were the women and children, the aged and defenceless.

Their favorite pastime was the burning of the homes of the Loyalists. Often the houses were set on fire in the middle of

winter and the occupants forced to take shelter the woods, every door being shut against them, some were frozen to death.

Frequently torture of various kinds was resorted to, in order to make the victims tell where their money or valuables

were concealed, or their dear ones in hiding. The family of Maby, which came to Long Point, suffered grievously, as will

be told in a subsequent chapter. There is nothing more pathetic than the story of this unceasing and determined

Nor were other states very far behind Massachusetts in point of unpunished lawlessness. The blood of the murdered

cried from the ground unceasingly for vengeance. The governments of the different states winked at, if they did not

sanction, this terrible ill-treatment of the Loyalists. All trod the blood-stained path of cruelty, and the pen of anguish

writes its history.

The Convention of the State of New York in 1776 enacted that any being an adherent of the king of Great Britain, should

be guilty of treason and should suffer death.

[Dr. Ramsay, "History of United States", Vol II Chap II.]
But this enactment of the Legislature seems to have been too extreme, and was not carried out in its entirety, the Loyalists for the most partbeing given an opportunity to quit the country. However, in all the states there was a vast amount of lawlessness by organized mobs, who had at least the passive sanction of the executive councils. The saying became common among these bands of "Loggers and Sawyers," that "The Lord commanded us to forgive our enemies, but said nothing about forgiving our friends." This went on so far that the State of North Carolina, in 1780, passed a law to put a stop to the robbery of people under the pretence that they were Tories, "a practice carried on even to the plundering of their clothes and household furniture."

[Hildreth, "History of United States", Vol III Chap 41.]

In New York State this rage for plundering grew so strong that it demoralized the American army, and affected even the

officers, who, from first opposing it, came to take afterwards an active share in despoiling Loyalist homes. [Dr. Ramsay,

"History of United States,", Vol. II, p. 159.]
"We hold," says the Declaration of Independence, these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they

are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of


And yet, in the same year in which that precious document was promulgated, the State of New York passed an Act

whereby severe penalties were pronounced on all adherents of the king. This then was the liberty they allowed their

opponents. They had one gospel for the Jews and another for the Gentiles. It matters so much whose ox falls into the



From the UEL Association:

A Short History of the United Empire Loyalists


Ann Mackenzie M.A.

Over two hundred years ago the American Revolution shattered the British

Empire in North America. The conflict was rooted in British attempts to assert

economic control in her American colonies after her costly victory over the

French during the Seven Years War. When protest and riots met the British

attempts to impose taxes on the colonists, the British responded with political

and military force. Out of the struggle between between the Thirteen Colonies

and their mother country emerged two nations: the United States and what

would later become Canada.

Not all the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies opposed Britain. The United

Empire Loyalists were those colonists who remained faithful to the Crown and

wished to continue living in the New World. Therefore, they left their homes to

settle eventually in what remained of British North America.

Who were the Loyalists?

The Loyalists came from every class and walk of life. Some depended on the

Crown for their livelihood and status and had considerable wealth and property.

Many were farmers and craftsmen. There were clerks and clergymen, lawyers

and labourers, soldiers and slaves, Native Americans, college graduates, and

people who could not write their own names. Recent immigrants from Europe

also tended to support the Crown.

They had little in common but their opposition to the revolution. Their reasons

for becoming Loyalists were as varied as their backgrounds. Some had strong

ties with Britain: others had simply supported what turned out to be the losing

side. Local incidents, fear of change, self-interest, political principles, emotional

bonds - one or any combination of these influenced their decision to remain loyal

to the Crown. The common thread that linked these diverse groups was a

distrust of too much democracy which they believed resulted in mob rule and an

accompanying breakdown of law and order. The Reverend Mather Byles

mused, "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away

or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" Loyalists believed that the British

connection guaranteed them a more secure and prosperous life than

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page