By Eden Schofield, B.A. in History and Museum Studies, Christopher Newport University (’26), and Sheri Shuck-Hall, PhD, Professor of History, Christopher Newport University
“Sure it behooves the deluded people of this country to consider these things maturely, and fly from this prospect of inevitable ruin, back to the constitutional ground of peace and safety from which they have been seduced by the phantom of Independency!”[1]
As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is crucial to remember that the American public was deeply divided. For those living through it, the War for Independence was not just a revolution against a distant empire; it was a brutal civil war. While national memory naturally highlights the triumphant American outcome, historians must look closer at the motives, strategies, and deeply held convictions of the British crown and the millions of colonists who remained loyal to it.[2]
The Declaration of Independence itself acknowledges this painful relational fracture, noting that the colonists had not been:
“…wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us… We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations… They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”[3]
Thousands of colonists actively rejected this separation, striving instead for reconciliation with the mother country. Believing that their liberties were best protected under the British constitution—a framework hard-won over centuries of imperial history—Loyalists viewed the radical actions of Patriot neighbors as reckless and unnecessary. These individuals vocalized their dissent throughout the conflict and maintained their convictions even in the bitter shadow of defeat after 1781.[4] This clash of ideals played out across communities, tearing apart families and upending local stability. While felt everywhere, few regions experienced this internal civil war quite like the tidewater communities bordering Virginia’s strategic Chesapeake Bay.
A Global Perspective: The View from Westminster
Traditional American narratives frame the Revolutionary War as a localized defense against tyrannical British overreach. However, viewing the conflict from London offers a vastly different political perspective. To the British ministry, the military campaign was an existential effort to preserve imperial integrity and safeguard vital overseas markets, especially after executing the costly Seven Years’ War against France. As historian H.T. Dickinson emphasizes, the conflict fundamentally centers on competing interpretations of British law and constitutional governance. Parliament maintained that the American colonies were inherently subordinate. In London’s view, colonial wealth and safety were the direct results of British military protection and financial backing. As the colonies prospered, British officials feared they would evolve into unregulated economic rivals rather than useful components of the empire.
To offset the staggering debts of the Seven Years’ War and establish a permanent security force, Parliament sought to exercise regulatory authority over colonial trade. According to the foundational principle of parliamentary sovereignty, these measures were fully legal and constitutionally sound.[5]
The political logic guiding King George III and his ministers was unyielding: if the American colonies successfully broke away, a domino effect would dismantle the rest of the British Empire. In 1776, General Sir William Howe and Admiral Richard Lord Howe were granted joint military and diplomatic commands in North America. They devised an aggressive campaign intended to suppress the rebellion in a single year—a plan that ultimately unraveled.
Following his capture by British forces, Continental General Charles Lee complicated British planning by turning attention toward the Chesapeake. Lee claimed that Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania were the true engines powering the rebellion. He insisted that many inhabitants along the Potomac River, the Eastern Shore, and the broader Chesapeake were secret Loyalists who would lay down their arms if offered an official royal pardon. Acted upon slowly by the cautious Howe brothers, this strategic intelligence contributed to a fateful pivot. Misled by faulty reports regarding the position of Washington’s army, Admiral Howe diverted his massive armada away from the Delaware Bay and steered directly into the Chesapeake Bay in the summer of 1777, abandoning the original plan to support a British march from Canada.[6]
This logistical diversion triggered immense political panic in Parliament. The crown had envisioned a sweeping pincer maneuver to trap and destroy the Continental Army in New York. Instead, the southern fleet leaves the northern army under General John Burgoyne completely isolated. Burgoyne’s subsequent surrender at Saratoga was an unmitigated disaster that altered global politics. Recognizing British vulnerability, France formally entered a military alliance with the United States. This transformed a colonial rebellion into a global war. In Virginia, the French alliance disrupted the tobacco economy; with the British blockade choking traditional English ports, France stepped in as the principal consumer of Virginia’s lucrative cash crop.[7]
Virginia Loyalists: Dissent and Chaos
No discussion of Virginia’s wartime experience is complete without mentioning John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, the colony’s final royal governor. Dunmore triggered immediate hostilities by seizing the public gunpowder from the Williamsburg magazine, executing raids along the coast, and ordering the bombardment of Norfolk in early 1776. Governor Dunmore’s official correspondence offers a raw window into the mindset of a royal official attempting to maintain law and order as his colony collapsed into rebellion. Letters traveling across the Atlantic demonstrate how colonial radicalism was interpreted by royal governors. Writing to the Earl of Dartmouth in 1773, Georgia Governor James Wright observed the volatile rhetoric surrounding the Continental Congress’s calls to resist British judicial authority:
“…And I do really believe that some of them will not only be mad enough to attempt this but also to oppose and engage the King’s Troops, for it is hardly to be conceived or credited how extravagantly they talk even in the next province.”[8]
By 1775, maintaining neutrality or expressing allegiance to the crown in Virginia brought immediate personal danger. An anonymous account sent from Virginia details the vigilante violence used to suppress Loyalist thought:
“…Every person who refuses to join their independent companies and support the cause, as they term it, is sure to be personally insulted and abused, his house leveled with the ground and his furniture destroyed, by a set of fellows habited as Indians…”[9]
The writer further detailed an account of a local mob physically assaulting and extracting a forced apology from an Anglican clergyman who had “in the mildest terms endeavored to convince them of their error and persuade them to peace and obedience.”[10] The observer concluded with a grim assessment of life under the revolutionary committees: “So you see, we are without law or gospel.”[11] Another writer noted similar political suppression earlier that year: “The gentlemen who style themselves Whigs and Patriots carry everything with a high hand, while those of more moderate principles, especially in this Province, [do not] dare to avow them.”[12]
Conflict in the Tidewater and Eastern Shore
When British forces deployed specialized units into Virginia, they found organized pockets of local support. Chief among these units was the Queen’s American Rangers, a renowned Loyalist regiment named in honor of Queen Charlotte. The Rangers earned widespread acclaim within the British military for their tactical discipline at major engagements, including Brandywine, Monmouth, and Springfield.[13]
In December 1780, British commander Sir Henry Clinton ordered the newly defected Brigadier General Benedict Arnold to launch an amphibious raid into Virginia, establishing a fortified base at Portsmouth. Clinton ordered Arnold to consult closely with Lieutenant Colonels Richard Dundas and John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe commanded the Queen’s Rangers, who traveled from New York to serve as the vanguard for the Virginia campaign. Arnold unleashed Simcoe’s Rangers on a series of swift raids along the James River, pushing as far inland as Richmond and Petersburg. Detachments struck supply depots at Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton, Burwell’s Ferry, and Westover. Later, the Queen’s Rangers accompanied Lord Cornwallis during his fateful fortification of Yorktown, fiercely defending British positions across the river at Gloucester Point until the final capitulation in October 1781.[14]
On the isolated communities of the Eastern Shore, allegiance to the crown ran deep among small yeoman farmers. These rural inhabitants did not believe that independence would benefit their economic survival. A traditional societal deference connected these farmers to the conservative values of the British empire. The Eastern Shore’s stubborn resistance was a constant source of frustration for Patriot leaders. In a May 1776 letter to Thomas Nelson, Thomas Jefferson included a telling postscript regarding a military officer stationed there:
“The congress having ordered a new battalion of riflemen to be raised in Virginia, Innis wishes much to be translated to it from the Eastern shore which was so disagreeable to him that he had determined to have resigned.”[15]
Throughout the war, the Eastern Shore’s high concentration of “Tories” undermined local revolutionary governance. Loyalists routinely refused to draft into Continental militias, actively sabotaged patriot training exercises, and braved Patriot patrols to smuggle vital livestock and grain directly to Dunmore’s fleet.[16]
When the British fleet entered the Chesapeake, local Loyalists felt re-energized. However, London routinely failed to provide these remote groups with consistent manpower or arms. Left isolated, many rural Loyalists were arrested by state authorities, forced to abandon their property, or driven into hiding across the marshy islands of the Bay. While inland Tory insurgencies struggled, Loyalist privateers dominated the waterways. Operating out of occupied Norfolk, small bands of Tory watermen waged economic warfare. Famed Loyalist privateers like Joseph Wheland Jr., Stephen Mister, and Marmaduke Mister disrupted commerce by capturing Patriot merchant vessels and routing their cargo into British supply chains. Armed with an intimate, lifetime knowledge of the Chesapeake’s complex tributaries, these watermen defied the fledgling Virginia Navy with the open backing of British warships.[17]
The Rise and Fall of Tory Norfolk
On the western side of the Bay, Norfolk stood as the undisputed capital of Virginian Loyalism, alongside deep pockets of crown support in Gwynn’s Island, Hobb’s Hole, Leedstown, and Urbanna. Norfolk’s population was heavily comprised of wealthy Scottish merchants whose financial livelihoods depended entirely on transatlantic trade with Great Britain. Eager to protect their shipping networks, these merchants looked to British authorities for stability. A prominent example was merchant Neil Jamieson. While initially sympathetic to colonial grievances, Jamieson backed the crown when Lord Dunmore arrived with naval support. Jamieson systematically moved his merchandise onto vessels in the harbor, packed his corporate ledgers, and converted his fleet into royal privateers to intercept rebel shipping.[18]
Similarly, elite planters like Colonel Jacob Ellegood raised provincial regiments to fight under Dunmore’s banner. Ellegood was later captured and spent years as a prisoner of war before being exiled, ultimately relocating his family to New Brunswick alongside thousands of other displaced Loyalist refugees.[19]
Because of its deep Loyalist ties, Norfolk became a prime military target. In early 1776, after Patriot forces drove Dunmore’s fleet off the mainland, the governor determined to destroy the waterfront to prevent it from serving as a rebel base.[20] An anonymous officer aboard the HMS Otter described the dynamic bombardment on New Year’s Day:
“I have the pleasure to assure you that this Rebel town of Norfolk is in ashes. It is glorious to see the blaze of the town and shipping. I exult in the carnage of these Rebels. The signal was given from the Liverpool, and in an instant the place was in flames. We are now proceeding on this business, and will burn every port on the seashore.”[21]
A young midshipman aboard the same vessel described the scene in a personal letter:
“The detested town of Norfolk is no more! Its destruction happened on New Year’s Day! About four o’clock in the afternoon the signal was given from the Liverpool, when a dreadful cannonading began from the three ships, which lasted till it was too hot for the rebels to stand on their Wharfs…no more of Norfolk remains than about twelve houses, which have escaped the flames!”[22]
This widespread destruction horrified Patriot leaders. George Washington lamented the burning of the city, condemning Great Britain in a letter to Joseph Reed as “…a Nation which seems to be lost to every sense of Virtue…”[23] The fiery destruction of Virginia’s largest commercial port exposes the bitter undercurrent of the conflict.[24] Following the British surrender at Yorktown, thousands of displaced Loyalists flooded back into Norfolk and the surrounding Princess Anne County, attempting to reclaim their seized lands. This sudden influx sparked immense local panic, prompting Virginia authorities to launch a wave of arrests and high-profile treason trials to purge crown sympathizers.[25]
During the 1782 peace negotiations in Paris, Continental commissioners steadfastly refused British demands to restore confiscated Loyalist estates, stating bluntly:
“We should be sorry if the absolute Impossibility of our complying further with your Propositions on this head should induce Great Britain to continue the War for the sake of those who caused and prolonged it…”[26]
Abandoned by the peace treaty, over 60,000 Loyalists fled the United States, scattering to Nova Scotia, Ontario, the West Indies, and London. Facing steep prejudice and the permanent loss of their ancestral homes, these exiles looked back at the new republic with deep bitterness. As one displaced New Yorker wrote to Lord Hardwicke in 1783, “The Rebels breathe the most rancorous and malignant Spirit everywhere.”[27]
As the VA250 anniversary invites communities to reflect on the legacy of 1776, we must recognize that the Patriot story is only one half of a complex narrative. The communities of the revolutionary era were not unified in political thought. The American Loyalists were an intrinsic part of the colonial landscape, caught in an imperial civil war that fractured families and reshaped the Atlantic world. By exploring the conflict through their words and experiences, modern audiences can better appreciate the human costs, conflicting loyalties, and deep historical scars that accompanied the birth of the United States.
About the Author
Eden Schofield graduated with a B.A. in History and Museum Studies from Christopher Newport University in 2026. She was awarded a graduate fellowship to James Madison University to pursue her M.A. in Public History. She plans to pursue a career in museum curation, focusing on the material culture of early America.
Notes
[1] Carol Sue Humphrey, The Revolutionary Era: Primary Documents on Events from 1776 to 1800 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003), 12.
[2] Ian R. Christie, “British Politics and the American Revolution,” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 9, no. 3 (1977): 205–26,
[3] “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” National Archives and Records Administration, last modified October 14, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.
[4] Humphrey, The Revolutionary Era, 5–18.
[5] H.T. Dickinson, Britain and the American Revolution (London: Routledge, 1998), 64–68; Christie, “British Politics and the American Revolution,” 206–211.
[6] Ernest M. Eller, ed., Chesapeake Bay in the American Revolution (Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 1981), 342–354.
[7] Eller, Chesapeake Bay in the American Revolution, 341–342, 356–363.
[8] James J. Barnes and Patience P. Barnes, eds., The American Revolution through British Eyes: A Documentary Collection, vol. 1 (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2013), 306.
[9] Barnes and Barnes, The American Revolution through British Eyes, 1:357.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Barnes and Barnes, The American Revolution through British Eyes, 1:305.
[13] Donald J. Gara, The Queen’s American Rangers (Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing, 2015), ix.
[14] James J. Barnes and Patience P. Barnes, eds., The American Revolution through British Eyes: A Documentary Collection, vol. 2 (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2013), 915–916, 972, 1018; Gara, The Queen’s American Rangers, 242–254, 302–303, 319–328.
[15] Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Nelson, May 16, 1776, Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0153.
[16] Eller, Chesapeake Bay in the American Revolution, 379–383; Keith Mason, “Localism, Evangelicalism, and Loyalism: The Sources of Discontent in the Revolutionary Chesapeake,” The Journal of Southern History 56, no. 1 (1990): 23–54; Barry Paige Neville, “For God, King, and Country: Loyalism on the Eastern Shore of Maryland During the American Revolution,” International Social Science Review 84, no. 3/4 (2009): 135–156.
[17] Eller, Chesapeake Bay in the American Revolution, 382–391.
[18] Ibid., 399–402; Adele Hast, Loyalism in Revolutionary Virginia: The Norfolk Area and the Eastern Shore (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1982), 71–75.
[19] Eller, Chesapeake Bay in the American Revolution, 399–402; Hast, Loyalism in Revolutionary Virginia, 71–75.
[20] Barnes and Barnes, The American Revolution through British Eyes, 1:366.
[21] Ibid., 1:372.
[22] Ibid., 1:374.
[23] George Washington to Joseph Reed, January 31, 1776, Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-03-02-0163.
[24] John Hancock to George Washington, January 6, 1776, Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-03-02-0026; Barnes and Barnes, The American Revolution through British Eyes, 1:366–374.
[25] Hast, Loyalism in Revolutionary Virginia, 124-130.
[26] Barnes and Barnes, The American Revolution through British Eyes, 2:1105.
[27] Ibid., 2:1136.