I originally started this particular story in a myspace group.  It got rather long and involved (not to mention isolated as myspace declined in popularity) so I have decided to bring it over here to GreatHistory.  I hope someone with an interest in Revolutionary Era Loyalists stumbles into the blog and finds enjoyment.  I personally became interested upon learning that my Gr Gr Grandpa, Stephen Dusenberry, served in the revolution for several years.  His unit attained great distinction and was present at lots of battles particularly in the Southern Campaign.  And of course, that unit served as part of the British Army and was made up of Loyalist men from New York.  In this case, from northern sections of Westchester County, New York.  This first section speaks of the political climate of the area in the time before the war began.  And then * * *

___________________________________________________________________________

Part I  

The Dusenbury family came to America and settled in New Amsterdam in the middle of the 17th century.  By the time of Stephen Dusenbury’s birth around 1758, the family had been in America for several generations.  One book on the Dusenbury family in America shows a Stephen born as fifth generation colonist.  There is no further information under the name in that 1932 book leaving the reader to wonder of its author carefully removed all ties to Stephen due to his notorious tory leanings.  In any event, Stephen Dusenbury went from teen to young adult in Westchester County during the years preceding the revolution. 

The ten year period before 1774 saw politics rise to a new level in the colonies.  Beginning with the 1763 Proclamation line, colonists grew increasingly uncomfortable with the King or Parliament dictating to them from across the ocean.  Political pamphlets containing arguments for or against the stamp acts, townsend acts, and other moves circulated around the colonies inflaming debate.  People spent their free time drinking and debating the events of the day and the impact of each upon the ‘liberty’ of the colonists.  The revolutionary ‘committees of correspondence’ grew aggressive in their tactics against the British with increasing use of non-importation and non-exportation boycotts of trade with England. 
 
Westchester County lay only 20 miles above New York City but remained an agricultural economy not directly related to the decision to import or export goods to England.  However, the indirect impact was felt very personally by every citizen.  Farm commodity prices fell drastically during periods of non-exportation.  British manufactured goods such as clothing, furniture, and household supplies became unavailable or too expensive.  Patriot committees sprang up to insure compliance with the boycotts.  These committees often used unruly mobs to do their bidding. 
 
By 1774 most moderate colonists tired of rebellion and lawless behavior.  They had trouble viewing the 3-pence tax on tea with the same disgust as with earlier taxes.  Even so, Sam Adams succeeded in having the Sons of Liberty dump tea in defiance of the Declaratory Act and its related tea taxes.  In Westchester County pamphlet wars again heated up the debate on rebellion.  At the Dusenberry Tavern near Peekskill local men gathered each evening to review the positions and debate the meaning of events.  They generally agreed  Parliament had overstepped its bounds and disliked taxation without representation.  However, most in the area balked at moving the talk forward to declaring independence.  Local leaders such as James Delancey and Van Courtlandt could be very vocal about opposing tyranny yet very conservative about allowing mob rule to replace their existing aristocracy.  
 
In a very widely read piece a writer signing as ‘The Westchester Farmer’ (believed Rev Samuel Seabury of the West Chester Anglican Church) argued logically and rationally against the nonimportation policies of the rebel patriots.  The remaining tax on tea represented a very slight amount of money and the economic boycotts devastated produce prices.  Worse, the ‘committee men’ respected a man’s rights even less than the British.  The patriot committees had been searching private property at will for any evidence of noncompliance with the boycotts.  The Farmer wrote emotionally stirring words, “my house is my castle and as such I will consider it, and as such I will defend it, while I have breath.”
 
The Farmer also complained that regardless of the warrantless search, anyone caught drinking tea or wearing clothing manufactured in Britain after March 1, 1774 was published in the Gazette and universally condemned as ‘foes to the Rights of British America and enemies of American Liberty.’  Naturally such public censure often motivated mobs of people to follow up with their now favorite tar and feathers routine.
 
A second pamphlet soon appeared under the title, SHORT ADVICE to the Counties of NEW YORK. by a COUNTRY GENTLEMAN.  (believed to be loyalist leader and brother-in-law to Gouvernier Morris, Isaac Wilkins).  He argued the Assemblies are the proper guardians of our liberties not ‘their High Mightiness the Mob, to the utter subversion of all Law, and the total destruction of all LIBERTY!’
 
Of course there were patriot responses.  Even a very young Alexander Hamilton tried his hand at persuasion with essay, “A FULL VINDICATION”.  But the agricultural communities in New York found these unsatisfying and kept their loyalty to the Colonial Assembly.   Dusenberry and most of his neighbors rejected the Vindication and agreed with Seabury’s response of December 24, 1774.  He referred to Britain as having ’strength sufficient to chastise her undutiful and rebellious children.’  He also accused Hamilton of a rash decision to rebel when peaceful solutions remained.

elijahchapman American History, American Revolution, General History American History, American Revolution