Methodists in Maryland¶
Preface¶
Regarding the Potts family’s designation as Loyalists, the likelihood of a sense of loyalty to the British Crown for this family of German immigrants is questionable and there has been no data as yet to support the possibility that they engaged in active combat on behalf of England. Many citizens regarded the Patriots as a destabilizing presence.
The members of the Potts family had strong ties to the Methodist Church in Canada. This Methodist affiliation likely preceded the families move to Canada. The following text provides an alternative rationale (i.e. Methodist Church affiliation) for the family being regarded as Loyalists or Tories. This approach is somewhat consistent with the Maryland Plantation Overseer story.
THE TREATMENT OF LOYALISTS AND NONJURORS IN MARYLAND, 1777-1784¶
DIFFICULTIES IN LOYALISM AFTER INDEPENDENCE: THE TREATMENT OF LOYALISTS AND NONJURORS IN MARYLAND, 1777-1784 (Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland)
By: Kimberly Michelle Nath
Pages 19-20
Social unrest emerged amidst the reorganization of Maryland’s government. In 1776 and 1777 Maryland experienced a series of riots and insurrections aided by the British on the Eastern and Western Shores. On the Eastern Shore Loyalists teamed up with free African Americans and Lord Dunmore to establish resistance movements against the Patriots. The Maryland legislature wrote Dunmore’s followers were “very smart fellows” and were fearful of the unrest on the Maryland Eastern Shore. The Council of Safety grew increasingly apprehensive of the insurgents and learned, in 1776, the British were landing supplies in Somerset County. Charles Carroll, an elite Patriot legislator, warned of disorder in Caroline and Dorchester Counties on the Eastern Shore. In the fall of 1776 officials from the Council of Safety in Dorchester reported nearly one hundred armed men resided in the county and behaved “riotously and disorderly.” The Western Shore also experienced similar difficulties. In St. Mary’s County John Dent, a Patriot military commander, reported 150 Loyalists and 100 free African American’s were preparing to rebel against the Patriots. Along the Eastern Shore in Dorchester County organized bands of Loyalists seized the personal property of Patriots. Therefore, in the Eastern and Western shores, locations far from the central authority, insurrections unfolded in areas where political authority was weaker. Unrest and insurrections plagued the Delaware border in Cecil County, Maryland as well.
An intriguing dimension to the riots involved the role of Methodist clergymen. William Paca, a member of the Maryland legislature, reported the Methodists led the insurrections in 1777. He declared “an insurrection of Tories on the borders of Queen Anne’s and Caroline Counties [were] headed by some scoundrel Methodist preachers.” In 1777 the position of Methodists in Maryland was tenuous at best. Furthermore, Maryland Patriots disliked Methodists because of their strong opposition to slavery and they previously preached to slaves. For example, Thomas Rankin, an active Methodist minister in Maryland, began delivering abolitionist speeches in 1775. Nelson Reed, an itinerant Methodist preacher on the Western shore, wrote about the necessity of freeing slaves before the revolution began. Methodist minister Freeborn Garretson preached on the Eastern Shore to slaves. He actively preached a “doctrine of freedom” in Maryland and this upset the Maryland legislature. Garretson, along with other Methodist ministers, encouraged and established mixed churches. Church membership on the Eastern Shore reveals a high degree of free black participation. As a result of the Methodist led insurrections and their abolitionist views, the Patriot legislature identified Methodists as a problematic religious sect.
Page 22-23
Loyalists bore the wrath of the elite propertied Patriots. Those disloyal were not welcome in Maryland and the Patriots began to immediately utilize the legal system as a mechanism for punishing the Loyalists. In 1777, following the adoption of the 1777 “Act to Prevent the Growth of Toryism and an Act for the Better Security of the Government,” counties began to create lists of men who were Patriots and identify those were not and were suspected of being Loyalists. The Act stated the oaths were to be taken and recorded in front of the magistrate of the county in which the person resided. The magistrate for each county in Maryland was required to keep books and have all men sign their name. Records were collected for those who did not sign, and men were brought to task for suspected treasonous activity if they did not abide by the law and were suspected by their neighbors. Across the state of Maryland counties faced a daunting task; they had to account for the allegiance of all free male citizens over the age of eighteen.
Pages 30-31
The easiest group of treasonous individuals identified was those in various British militia organizations, especially Loyalist units, such as the Maryland Loyalist Regiment. The Courts had no difficulty in identifying Loyalists who actively fought against Maryland in the British militia. For example, in 1781 the General Court of the Eastern Shore found all those serving in the Loyalist Regiments guilty of treason. These men were known Loyalists who were either royal officials or were currently serving in the Maryland Loyalist regiment. These men were clearly identified as not part of the Maryland citizenry, and as alien enemies they lost any rights outlined in the Declaration of Rights. The Patriots initially used the 1777 Act to identified propertied elite Loyalists. Thus, the elite sought out the elite Loyalists and absentees in the early years of the American Revolution.
Nonjurors, those who refused to take the oath of allegiance but proclaimed neutrality, proved to be a continuing problem for the Maryland Patriots. The Maryland legislature was not sure how the nonjurors were categorized under law for they were neither loyal nor disloyal. Neutrality did not sit well with the legislature for allegiance to the state was the primary mechanism for determining one’s access to privileges of citizenship. Meanwhile, the Patriots in Maryland grew fearful of the events conspiring on the Eastern and Western Shores. The Legislators recognized that disloyal persons inhabited Maryland and enacted a series of laws that utilized allegiance as a mechanism for vesting rights of citizenship. Furthermore, the laws began to actively identify treasonous behavior. In 1777 “An Act for the Better Security of the Government” required every free male person within the state over the age of 18 to take an oath of fidelity and support the state. The Patriots used the law to prevent the state from becoming “an asylum for the disaffected fugitives from other states.” Therefore, the legislators required all men to confess allegiance or affirmation to Maryland. The Legislature allowed Quakers and Methodists claim affirmation to not “yield any allegiance or obedience to the king of Great-Britain, his heirs or successors, and that I will be true and faithful to the United States of America, and will…defend the freedom and independence thereof.” The intention was the same as the oath of fidelity, but the legislature hoped the use of the word affirmation would be more agreeable to these groups. The Quakers and Methodists, however, refused this option in 1777, for an oath in any form violated their religious principles.
The Patriot legislators wrote the law so that those who refused to take oaths of allegiance or affirmation suffered an immediate consequence. As a consequence of neutrality, the legislators restricted nonjurors from basic legal rights outlined in the Declaration of Rights. The law also barred nonjurors from partaking in certain legal and merchant professions.
Page 62
Immediately following independence, the Patriots identified the problems plaguing the newly freed state. Insurrections, an uneasy political atmosphere, and economic unrest all contributed to the responses of the legislature immediately following the Declaration of Independence. Fears of treason and alien enemies residing within the Maryland borders also created tension within the new state. The Patriots called for identification of those who were not loyal. However, the Maryland government, still in its formative years, lacked the ability to truly identify and punish the disloyal. By 1780 the Maryland Legislature moved beyond identification of Loyalists and nonjurors. The Patriots continued to struggle with the treatment of Loyalists, despite the passing of laws, and responded by treating Loyalists and Nonjurors more harshly. The legislature, also economically motivated, turn to the active seizure of British Property and taxation of Nonjurors in the years following.
Page 72
Like the Quakers, the Methodists faced severe fines and imprisonment for not claiming allegiance to the state. The records for the Methodists do not reveal information on payment of the treble tax; however, they paid fines for preaching. Methodists, the other recognized group of Nonjurors, also concerned the Patriot legislature. The Methodists received special attention and concern due to their alleged involvement in the insurrections in Maryland before American Revolution. In 1777 the Maryland legislature feared the involvement of Methodist preachers in the insurrections. Furthermore, the Methodists population typically sympathized with Great Britain. The Maryland legislature was concerned with this potentially subversive group.
Methodist circuit-riders in America, 1766-1844¶
William A. Powell Jr. Masters Thesis University of Richmond (August 1977)
Pages 8 to 12 (quoted text - see original for footnotes)
The Methodist movement in North America was altered during the Revolution. When the conflict commenced, John Wesley printed a pamphlet entitled, "A Calm Address to the American Colonies." This tract justified the English government and condemned the actions of colonists. American Methodists, under Wesley's direction, were advised to "say not one word against one or the other side." But, Wesley's pamphlet gave his colonial followers an image of Toryism. Patriots associated members of the denomination with Wesley's political views and in some instances questioned Methodist religious motives. Asbury faced this situation and said, "I • • • am truly sorry that the venerable man ever dipped into the politics of America •••• Some inconsiderate persons have taken occasion to censure the Methodists • • • on account of Mr. Wesley's political sentiments." Thomas Rankin, George Shadford and the other English preachers returned to Great Britain before 1778. Asbury alone remained but was forced into exile in Delaware where the test oath was not mandatory for clergy.
Methodism was Americanized when native ministers became influential leaders. William Watters (1751-1833), Phillip Gatch (1751-1834), Freeborn Garrettson (1752-1827), Jesse Lee (1758-1816) and others became prominent America Methodist preachers. Professor William Warren Sweet called the English missionaries' departure "a fortunate happening for the future of American Methodism." The denomination relied on native ministry early in its development. This was one important factor which contributed to Methodist expansion in the United States.
Religious societies were disrupted where actual combat occured. The annual conference failed to send itinerants to the Norfolk circuit in southeastern Virginia from 1778 to 1782. No Methodist minister could preach effectively in the war-stricken area. Many members volunteered or were drafted into the militia and some died in battle. Others were influenced by non-Methodists and lost religious zeal. One group became "bound in conscience not to fight" and condemned violence on moral grounds.· But, American patriots often misinterpreted the religious motivations of conscientious objectors and labeled them Tories. Freeborn Garrettson, was assailed by mobs, beaten into unconsciousness and jailed on suspicion of being a British spy. Many Methodists encountered some form of persecution. However, adversity aided the religious group in several ways. The conflict separated dedicated members from those who were less serious. The religious convictions of many Methodists were strengthened when they suffered for their faith.