Since I'm just a hobbyist in this area of research, before I read documents, I had to learn to look for documents. It is by searching that I have learned, I believe, to search more efficiently better. I also realize that I have more progress to do than I did.
I have no intention of convincing you to adopt one hypothesis rather than another.
I chose to emit my humble opinion here and there on some specific subjects. These are just opinions, because I have little or no documents to support them. It's up to you to judge their intrinsic value.
My brother, Ghislain, has done a titanic job by bequeathing us a considerable number of documents relating to our ancestor. These documents served as raw material for another of my brothers, Benoit, to write an interesting and informative synthesis of everything known up to now about Philip. Let's not forget the generous contribution of my uncle Gilles Long.
Gilles inserted in his book on the origins of Marie-Julie Couillard-Després, Philip Long's wife, a section
on Philip and his family. This document is a precious asset and an undisputed referential document.
Gilles and Benoit deserve all our recognition not only for the significant documents they shared with us, but especially for the documentary approach of their respective work. It is obvious that they have established a definitive methodology that is beneficial to follow.
A professional genealogist, Jean-Guy Poitras, did the genealogy of the Longs and Langs. This work is invaluable and represents an incredible amount of work.
I have benefited from the collaboration and sound advice of Benoit and Gilles Long throughout this process. Although they have contributed immensely and in many ways to my research, I am the only one and sole responsible for these assumptions. I dare to believe and hope that they will formulate their own assumptions in due course. We will know how to appreciate them.
Among these elements, the number of Longs present in the
Another element, and not least, is enumerating religions in force in the United States during the Revolution. The fact that Philip was Protestant can help us go back to his origins. Were the Germans on American soil Protestants?
As Philip was part of a loyalist regiment, it is necessary to learn about this loyalist movement of the late 18th century. In fact, by increasing our knowledge of the context of this War of Independence, we can certainly understand the actions of individuals who lived this event from 1775 to 1783, not to mention the consequences they had to endure and suffer. I will begin, therefore, with a text describing the loyalist movement of the American Revolution. Anyone can access many of those document on the Web.
You will understand by reading that I am interested in identifying indicators or clues that can somehow give veracity or credibility to each of these assumptions. As I will continue my research far beyond this document, I wish to identify other valuable clues. I will be happy to add yours if the opportunity arises.
Since religion was not an issue, the disputes over issues in character, such as taxation, officials, were all the more bitter. The settlers on the border were snubbed both socially and politically by the low-country aristocracy, and in North Carolina and South Carolina were denied courts of justice and adequate representation in the colonial assembly. Naturally they refused to follow such leaders in a war in defense of principles in which they had no material interest. They did not drink tea and had little opportunity for the use of stamps, since they have been in the business of selling and selling products.
The failure of the British officers to realize that conditions in the south different from those in the north, Dissenters as rebels have been responsible for the ultimate loss of their southern campaign. The Scotch / Irish in the south, influenced by religious and commercial oppression in Ulster, were mostly in sympathy with the American cause.
Taking the Thirteen Colonies as a whole, loyalty drew its strength from the following classes:
(1) the official classmen holding positions in the civil, military and naval services, and their immediate families and social connections, as, for example, Lieutenant-Governor Bull in South Carolina, Dunmore Governor in Virginia and Governor Tyron in New York;
(2) the professional classes of lawyers, physicians, teachers and Benjamin Kissam, Peter Van Schaack, Dr. Azor Betts of New York and Dr. Myres Cooper, President of Kings College (now Columbia University);
(3) broad landed proprietors and their tenants, e.g. William Wragg in South Carolina and De Lanceys, De Peysters and Van Cortlandts in New York;
(4) the wealthy commercial classes in New York, Albany, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Charleston, whose business interests would be affected by war;
(5) natural conservatives of the type of Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania numerous political trimmers and opportunists.
Before 1776 the Loyalists can be divided into two groups. There was a minority of extremists led by the Anglican ministers and teachers, who favored an unquestioning obedience to all British legislation. The moderate majority disapproved of the mother countries unwise colonial policy and advocated opposition.
Many even sanctioned non-import and non-export agreements, and took part in the election of delegates to the First-Continental Congress. The aggressive attitude of Congress, the subsequent adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and the refusal to consider Lord Howes conciliatory propositions. Very few really sanctioned the British policy as a whole, but it was their first duty to fight for the preservation of the empire.
John Adams estimate that one-third of the people in the thirteen states in 1776 were Loyalists. In New England, the largest number of people in Connecticut and in the district which afterwards became Vermont. New York was the chief stronghold. The De Lancey party or the Episcoparian party included the wealthy farmers, merchants and bankers, and practically all communicants of the Anglican Church. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia contained large and influential Loyalist minorities; North Carolina was about South Carolina probably, and had Loyalist majorities.
Some of the Loyalists joined the regular British army, others organized guerrilla bands and their Indian allies inaugurated a reign of terror on the frontier from New York to Georgia. New York alone furnished about 15,000 Loyalists to the British Army and Navy, and about 8,500 militia, making in all 23,500 Loyalist troops. This may be more than any other combination. Johnson's Loyal Greens and Butlers Tory Rangers served under General St Leger in the Burgoyne campaign of 1777, and the latter took part in the Wyoming and Cherry Valley massacres of 1778.
The strength of these Loyalists in arms was weakened in New York by General Sullivan success at Newtown (now Ermira) on the 29th of August 1779, and broken in the north-west by George Rogers Clarks victories at Kaskaskia and Vincennes in 1778 and 1779, and in the south by the battles of Kings Mountain and Cowpens in 1780. Severe laws were passed against the Loyalists in all the states. They were in general disfranchised and prohibited to take office or practice law.
According to a trustworthy estimate 60,000 persons went into exile during the great majority settled in Nova Scotia and Upper and Lower Canada, where they and their descendants became known as United Empire Loyalists. Those who remained in the United States for many years, and all the laws against them were not repealed until after the War of 1812.
The British government, however, endeavored to look after the interests of its loyal colonists. Loyalists (e.g. Joseph Galloway) were appointed to lucrative positions, and rations were Loyalists in the cities, such as New York, which were held by the British. During the peace negotiations at Paris the treatment of the Loyalists presented a difficult problem, Great Britain at first insisting that the United States should agree to their disabilities and to act towards them in a spirit of conciliation.
In Great Britain the opponents of the government asserted that the Loyalists had virtually been betrayed; in America the treaty aroused opposition to make too great concessions to them. Congress made the promised recommendations, but they were unheeded by the various states, in spite of the advocacy by Alexander Hamilton and others of a conciliatory treatment of the Loyalists; and Great Britain, in retaliation, refused until 1796 to evacuate the western posts to the prescribed treaty. Immediately after the war parliament appointed to the commission office to review the claims of the Loyalists for compensation for services and losses; Loyalists in Nova Scotia and the British government expended fully * 6, ooo, ooo pounds.
C. H. van Tyne, The Loyalists in the American Revolution (New York, 1902), which contains a lot of information about the causes of loyalty. More useful in this respect is the A. Flick monograph, Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution Q, (New York, 1901). On the biographical side see Lorenzo Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (2 flights, Boston, 1864); on the literary side, Mr. C Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, 1763 1783 (2 vols., New York, 1897).
The number of Longs living in America at the time of the Revolution is a crucial element for the conduct of our research. I compiled Table 1 for this purpose on the basis of data from the first census in the United States in 1790. These censuses were repeated every ten year period. It is not possible to know exactly how many Longs were present in the United States in 1775. It is reasonable to believe that it was certainly less than that indicated in the table below. At this census of 1790, women and children were enumerated.
We know that in the three loyalist provincial regiments featured a Philip Long: New York Volunteers, West Florida Royal Foresters and King's American Regiment. It seems to me more reasonable to believe that he was the same individual and that he was our ancestor.
Table 2 can help you see how Long's numbers were evolving in the early part of the nineteenth century.
You can see in Table 3 that the names of many of these individuals are repeated a few times. I chose to take each of the documents in which there is an individual named Long. I hope that this list will be used by other researchers at the same time for purposes they deem useful.
However, in the case of Philip, the religious, military and civilians that we have seem to go against the tradition oral and do nothing to strengthen it. Here's what I have found:
(1) Philip never signed his name other than Philip Long in all the documents.
(2) Everyone who has spoken about him in a document and who have known him are referring to Philip and not John Philip. There is, however, an exception to this rule. Bishop Plessis' secretary, visiting Philip at Lac Témiscouata in 1811, speaks rather of John Lang. All indications are that it was our ancestor. It is also likely that, if Philip had a brother of John's name and if he was present during Bishop Plessis's visit, the secretary by writing his logbook was able to commit this trivial error at the time, but an annoying today. Moreover, Lorette Long-Prentice mentioned that Philip and John went to Quebec after arriving in Canada.
(3) The John Philip name is rarely found in the genealogical basis that I consulted. John Philip Long's name appears exclusively in Germany. I discovered a John Philip Long at the time of the American Revolution. He was part of a patriotic regiment (Continentals) of Pennsylvania. In 1781 he received a bounty from the Berks County authorities. The majority of the inhabitants of this county at that time was of German origin (74%). Note that Philip, our ancestor, was at the same time part of the King's American Regiment, a provincial loyalist regiment.
The documents bearing the name Philip Long are numerous and of various types. There are muster rolls of loyalist regiments, letters written in his own hand or which were written on his behalf, the certificate of his death, the census of Deane and Kavanagh in 1830 in Clair and several other documents written by people of his day that mention it. With one exception (Journal des Missions, 1811-2), all speak of our ancestor as Philip and not John Philip.
Upon examination of the birth certificate of his wife, Marie-Julie, one notes that she married at the age of 16, which implies that Philip was much older than her when they married in Quebec City in 1792. Because of this considerable age difference, a dilemma has persisted to this day.
Bishop Ernest Lang tried to solve it by claiming that Philip was born in around 1757. He wanted to do well by relying on the minimum age enlistment required in the British Army. Minimum age required was 17 years old. This way of solving the riddle biased the search and slowed down the discovery of Philip's true origins. Without intending to do so, Bishop Lang kicked off this research, which persists to this day. For that, he deserves all our admiration and our gratitude.
An official document helped me to argue that Philip was not born to around 1757, but earlier. This is the Deane and Kavanagh Census of 1830. These enumerators, present in Clair, went from one house to another to identify the inhabitants and to obtain information about them.
In addition to the number of people living in each household, they reported the sex, the relationship within the household, and the approximate age of each one. They did not assign a specific age, but rather an age category. The age category was 10 years old. For example, the range of 50 to 60 years represents a category.
In the following Table 4, I have introduced the files of Philip, Marie-Julie and three of their children present at this census in Clair. The category age associated with each of these people is the one given by Deane and Kavanagh. It was easy for me to indicate for four of them their actual age since I have their birth certificate.
We quickly realize that the actual age coincides well with the age categories granted by the enumerators on the spot. It is therefore quite reasonable to believe that Philip was indeed between 80 and 90 years old.
Gilles Long (2001) pointed out on page 152 that the death certificate of Marie-Julie indicated that she died at the age of 92, when she was rather 81. It's enough to cast a serious doubt about the age of death of Philip as indicated on his death certificate.
You can do the exercise again with other members of the family of Philip and Marie-Julie and you will arrive at the same result.
Therefore, we can hypothesize that Philip could have been 80 in 1830. Let's say he could be 88 years old as well. This means that he could be between 82 and 90 years old in 1832 when he died.
This reasoning does not allow us to specify Philip's actual age at his death. It helps to search for the birth certificate of an individual born between 1742 and 1750, instead of an individual born around 1757. In extending our research over a longer period, our chances increase to find the birth certificate of our ancestor or a individual with the same name. Along the way, our research will maybe uncover other documents about our ancestor. In short, I expanded my search window in the hope of getting hold of other documents that could help us reconstruct the life and origins of our ancestor.
It's hard to accept that Philip was born in the late 1750s. I have documents written by people who met Philip at Lac Témiscouata and who speak of him as being a senior, an old servant. Among others, John Mann, a visiting Scotsman, speaks of Philip in these terms: the old gentleman (Mann, 1816). We will return later to this meeting between Philip and Mann. The nationality of Mann in addition to his writings concerning Philip represent, in my opinion, a key document in our current research.
There is only one step to take to ask the following question:
Marie-Julie, on the other hand, does not seem to have benefited from such schooling since she made an X (a mark) on her wedding certificate instead of writing her name in full. Did this lack go so far as to make her ignorant of her date of birth, so of her age?
We must also remember that the two priests officiating at these two religious ceremonies that occurred several years apart indicated the approximate age of Marie-Julie and Philip without questioning family members about it.
We have few documents that allow us to roughly assess the level of education of the family. I found a report from the enumerators of Deane and Kavanagh (1830) to which I am very much attached. It's about information collected from Jean-Baptiste, son of Philip. Since the interview sheet was completed on the spot and brought to the archives, it is as if the event had happened a few days ago. This text has not been altered in any way by the oral tradition. Judge for yourself.
Note. The Long family lives in Clair since 1827 and not 1828 as we believe it.
In any event, the error raised by Gilles Long concerning the date of the Marie-Julie's death leaves us perplexed and encourages us to be cautious. The other death certificates signed by these priests should be examined to calculate in how many cases they made this kind of mistake. This is an interesting research trail for a family member who wants to make a contribution in this area.
Unless an official document is discovered, it is difficult to bring details of this event that Bishop Lang described as a heroic gesture. However, nothing prevents us to learn about the couriers at the time of the Revolution.
Communication between the regiments and their headquarters was through the couriers who are not an invention of the American Revolution: they are from most wars and all eras. I'm not teaching you anything new about this.
The following text shows the crucial role played by women during the Revolution as military couriers.
....Nor do they learn about Deborah Champion who galloped for 2 days through intelligence to Gen. Washington ... or Emily Geiger who rode 100 miles through the South Carolina swamps to deliver dispatches from Gen. Nathaniel Greene to Gen. Thomas Sumter ... or Susanna Bolling, a teenager who crossed the Appomattox River, alone and at night, to warn Gen. Lafayette of a planned British attack ... or Betsy Dowd, a 16 year old, who warned the Americans of Gov. Dunmore's plans Norfolk, Virginia ... or Lydia Barrington Darragh, a 48 year old mother of 9, who is a member of the United States. shot to ambush his troops at White Marsh, Pennsylvania.
There is no need to show that these couriers carried goods coveted by the enemy. The premiums for catching these mails were high in some cases. The amount of the bonus was determined by the military value of the intercepted documents.
The couriers went from one regiment to another carrying and collecting messages. Their knowledge of the terrain and their journeys brought them surely to inadvertently encounter enemy couriers. They may even use strategies to intercept them in the process.
It seems reasonable to me that Philip could have been a courier at the time of the Revolution and that he, like others, had the opportunity to intercept enemy mail. I prefer to believe that his gesture was planned rather than fortuitous.
Some will dare to pretend that Philip belonged, before the beginning of the war, to the army of revolutionaries and that he passed on the side of British carrying with him this famous mailbag.
In 1775, one third of the American population strongly supported the British Crown. Barely seven years later, less than 3% of them remained faithful to this position and decided to opt for exile rather than go to the side of the patriots. Then, as the war unfolded, the desertion went from the loyalists to the patriots. In other words, the context of the time goes against this assumption that Philip passed from patriots to loyalists.
For several reasons, this hypothesis appears to me to be unlikely, even if such desertions have actually occurred. As I will elaborate later on the subject, I am content to indicate for the moment that Philip wrote that he worked for the British Crown since 1775. The regiments, therefore the battles, on that date were rather sparse. The context does not seem to lend itself easily to such an event.
In order to show that Philip was of English origin, I will list some clues that tend to favor this hypothesis. I will do this for the other hypotheses relating to Scottish, American and German origin. In fact, it would be more accurate and appropriate to talk about its probable origin rather than its actual origin.
A birth record in England
After intense research, this file is the only one found that fits well with the likely age of Philip. Indeed, according to this certificate registered at the church of Lansallos (Church of England, a Protestant church), and, Of course, if he represents the true birth certificate of our ancestor, Philip would have died at the age of 90 and would have married at the age of 50. His last child would also be born when he was 78 years old.
The oral tradition also wants Philip to have a brother living in the area of Fredericton. Until recently, no one had advanced a name for this brother. According to Audrey, daughter of Lorette Long Prentice, Philip's brother's name was John. She got this information from her mother. I would like to share with you what she wrote to Gilles Long on this subject.
However, Lansallos is, in fact, a coastal road that leads to Polperro.The population of Lansallos at that time was small and still is not large. Sometimes we refer to Lansallos as Lansallos Street. My daughter, Véronique, visited the place and confirms that the population on this road is sparse. In 1998, the population was 1,565, compared to 828 in 1841.
It is worth mentioning now, that individuals named John Long are numerous in all the eras studied and in many countries. A simple preliminary search is quite convincing for anyone. Any hypothesis relating to John Long seems risky and hard to support.
At this point, it is also crucial to distinguish an association link from a juxtaposition link between two individuals from two separate folders. You will forgive me this digression, but I deem it necessary at this point. Otherwise, we risk of launching hypotheses completely false. From the case of Philip and John, here's what I mean by link of association and link of juxtaposition.
On the birth certificate of this Philip Long or this John Long, nothing indicates that the parents, John and Elizabeth, had two children named John and Philip on the dates we have just mentioned. There is nothing to prove that John and Philip belong to two distinct families whose parents wear the same names.
Several files that we meet in these databases allow to make functional and close associations between children and relatives of the same family. I dare to believe that, in these cases, parents have lived long enough at the same location to allow the authorities to include information in the parents' files. When parents have spent their entire life at the same location, it is easy for religious authorities to write the names of children or parents' death record.
In short, sedentary parents have an advantage relative to nomadic parents. For example, no John Long was born in the village of Lansallos who could be the father from John and Philip. As the name of John Long is popular everywhere else, none of them can be considered
preferential candidate for now. John, Philip's father and
John, did not get married and did not die there, from
less if we believe the databases.
It remains to demonstrate that Philip really had a brother living in Fredericton and his name was John. Our work progresses in this field. To this day, we know that a man named John Long has arrived at River St John in 1783 with the King's American Dragoons Regiment (KAD), which he first settled in Prince William, which he traded for Hiel Camp in Oromocto and asked for to receive another (land petition) in 1786 in York County (near Woodstock) as the other members of this regiment did. Esther Clark Wright pointed this request of KAD members in her book entitled Loyalists of New Brunswick.
Thanks to Audrey Prentice and Gilles Long that we have, for
say, discovered this unrecognized loyalist. Is he really the brother of our ancestor? You will agree that the coincidence is amazing and deserves to be exploited.
This high proportion of Americans of English stock shows us England had contributed up to this period to people America by successive and sustained waves of immigrants.
Moreover, we are entitled to expect that the majority of loyalists will be Americans of English stock precisely a conflict between a colonizing country and an eager country of political and economic independence. Defenders of England in this conflict must be, in the majority, ethnic Americans English. The story will show us that they are not all, however. Here is what F. Eleanor Chapin says about it:
Table 5 below shows unequivocally how important it is to rely on historical documents to verify any hypothesis.
Philip was also a protestant and loyalist. At a census in Quebec, in 1805, the enumerators identified a certain Phil Loan, courier from Halifax to Quebec. (ref. Gilles Long) He indicated that he was of Protestant religion. This individual is most likely Philip Long, our ancestor.
In addition, the wedding of Marie-Julie and Philip took place in Quebec in the church of the Récollets: the church is catholic, but the officiant is anglican. (Gilles Long, page 130).
All indications are that he maintained his Protestant beliefs during for a long time because he witnessed the baptism of only one of his children, Edouard-Narcisse in 1803 (Gilles Long, page L39). Nothing tells us that he converted at one point to Catholicism.
It is crucial to establish Philip's religious allegiance in order to determine whether it accords with the widespread Protestantism of the English Loyalists.
In my humble opinion, his deep-rooted Protestant allegiance is the strongest evidence to show he was of English origin. This index alone is not enough, however.
On Internet, I found the following text about the close relationship between loyalty and Protestantism.
Loyalists, those colonists who affirmed Britain's authority over the colonies, were described at the time as "persons inimical to the liberties of America." In the republican ideology of the new nation, Tories were vilified as guilty against ignorance, cupidity, or moral obtuseness. But, if the political complexion between 1775 and 1783 is accurately described as equally divided among patriots, loyalists, and those diffident or disaffected, understanding loyalism is essential to unlocking the puzzle of revolutionary America.
Indeed, Loyalists have been an identifiable segment of the wartime population. Outside the British-controlled Garrison towns, loyalism was often fluid, especially in the back country, where the patriot army was weak, citizens could afford to be loyalist or neutral, but changes in military power also made loyalism precarious.
Anglicans were more likely to be loyalists. More than simply the losers in the war, the loyalists were the obverse of the new nation's ideology without which the Revolution is incompletely understood.
Another text, that of Jon Butler (Yale University), is even more explicit about the religious beliefs of members of the Church of England and their affinity with the loyalist movement. You have in memory that it is possible that our ancestor was baptized at the Protestant church (Church of England) of Lansallos, England.
The Church of England, the second largest denomination in the colonies (Behind New England's Congregationalists), suffered most disastrously during the Revolutionary War because the King headed the Church. More Loyalists belonged to the Church of England than were affiliated with any other social or religious group, and many Anglican Ministers left the colonies, as a result of Revolutionary upheavals, most Anglican congregations lost members, while others disbanded.
It is important to emphasize that Philip did not only suffer the Revolution American: he participated actively. He did not just wait the result of the war: he went to the forefront at the outbreak of it. His attachment to England was therefore profound and sincere. This identification to the British Crown and Protestantism is not enough to show that he originated from England?
None of the indices listed so far alone are sufficient to point in the direction of England as the place of origin of Philip. But, the convergence of all these factors are sufficient to make us think.
The Scots spoke the language of the English; some Scots even endorsed Protestantism; Scots and Irishmen have been fighting side by side with the Loyalists; the English Loyalists are not all born in England, but for the most part in America; the surname Long is not exclusive to England since it is found in the German, Scottish, Irish and American population. So, how can we argue that Philip could have been of English origin?
At the same time that I am doing my best to demonstrate the relative credibility of each of the assumptions, I find that there is only one suitable birth certificate and that it serves the interests of only one hypothesis.
After extensive research, I have not found to date a second birth record of another Philip Long that may be suitable for what we know of our ancestor and that we are entitled to expect.
Frankly, I have found others. However, I managed to show that it could not be our ancestor. I formed a table for this purpose. We must not despair. Here's why.
Two years ago I had found a Philip Long in Wales. He married in 1774 in Glamorgan. There is no birth record of this individual in that same country. It's only recently that I have discovered, deeply buried in a database, a Philip Long who bought a Bible in Carmarthen, Wales, in 1779. I tend to believe that these two events, marriage and the purchase of a Bible, are related to the same individual. At that date, 1779, our ancestor was part of a loyalist regiment in America.
Individuals born in the 18th century do not all appear in the genealogy basis. Some escape. It is possible that our ancestor is part of this group. I cannot tell you what proportion this group represents.
It is crucial to know that a large number of immigrants have changed their name when arriving in America. By examining passenger lists from Germany, for example, one quickly realizes that the majority of these names were thrown overboard while crossing the Atlantic.
It is not surprising, in the light of this finding, that we can not find the birth record of many individuals of the time of the Revolution. As far as we are concerned, Long, Lang and Lung are trading for each other in Germany, and elsewhere too. Better still, in the same family of American immigrants, it happens that the father bears the name of Lang and that the son carries that of Long. We meet even sons who changed their last name to another name, both different. Do not believe, however, that this is the general rule: the exception is not the rule!
I chose to introduce you to various Philip Long who were born at a critical time period, 1740-1760, or who married between 1755 and 1785. In fact, my search window was even wider.
All in all, there was a Philip Long in Virginia (patriot), a second in Pennsylvania (patriot too) and a third, our ancestor, in New York (loyalist) at the time of the Revolution.
There were a few others in England. They all married there. It is, nevertheless, possible that our ancestor was one of those. However, our ancestor indicated on his marriage certificate that he was single. Moreover, they are, for the most part, too old to be our ancestor; we should not add insult to injury! I still wanted to introduce them to you.
I invite you to notice a popular trend in families of that time, and still a little today. The parents, both mother and father, gave their first name to one of their children. If there is a Philip in a family, it is likely that there have been others before and after him.
I tried, for each hypothesis, to develop a scenario which seems likely to me. These scenarios are based, broadly speaking, on premises which, if declared false one day, would lead to the hypothesis in an irreversible collapse. It is not great intelligence to establish probable links between documents or between events. I still have to try to do it for lack of a better alternative.
It is still necessary to scrutinize the lists of passengers that have been kept and are accessible to us. Not all immigrants have been registered. Many lists have also been lost. Some captains of boats did not care for these lists.
Anyone who wants to find a European ancestor who has immigrated America will sooner or later have to look at William Filby's volumes. Gilles Long consulted them and shared with us the documents he deemed relevant. I extracted from these documents the data that allowed me to complete Table 8.
Obviously, we're looking for a passenger named Philip Long, but just as much, John Long. On most of these lists appended by William Filby and his colleagues note that only the name of the head of the family is entered on the passenger list. The names of the children on board are indicated only occasionally.
In assuming that our ancestor was born in England or elsewhere in Europe and that he has traveled with his family at a young age, it is crucial to find a John Long on a list drawn up during the years 1740 to 1760, without setting aside the years going from 1761 to 1775.
By looking at Filby's data, only one Philip Long would have gone through the Atlantic shortly before the Revolution. It is found that it is original German. This passenger could very well be the one who was part of a patriot regiment in Pennsylvania.
For the name John Long, I do not dare to interpret the results. Feel free to analyze them.
Since we have many family ties with various French-Canadian and Quebec families, since French is our mother tongue and since we have been in a Francophone and Catholic environment for two centuries, it is understandable that many have difficulty accepting the possibility that we have roots stretching as far as England and even in entrails of Protestantism. I'm not trying to rebuild a past to our modern standards, but rather to discover it.
On two occasions, Philip himself identified as an American.
The first time, during a meeting with John Mann (1816), a Scott crossing Lake Témiscouata. Speaking of Philip, Mann writes: the landlord was an American.
The second time, during the census of Deane and Kavanagh in 1830, Philip identified himself as an American Loyalist. The enumerators took note of it.
It is significant to note that Philip, after 33 years in Canada, still identified as an American. Philip may have only informed John Mann that he had been to the United States before entering Canada and that Mann deduced that he was an American. It is as likely that Philip held this identity and he was not afraid to display it. In 1830, 47 years after his arrival in Canada, Philip once again emphasized his identity as an American loyalist to enumerators.
This American identity that Philip has maintained until his last days seems firmly rooted to me, well anchored.
His years in the United States left an imprint that he did not seek to erase, even in Clair, a territory populated in part of Acadians who had suffered the harmful consequences of the smashing arrival of loyalists in New Brunswick.
The research we are conducting is not intended to confirm or refute the assumption that Philip was of American origin: he lived in the United States for at least eight years, it seems. It's more about finding a birth certificate somewhere in order to learn where he was born: that's the main question. He may have been born in the United States. He could just as easily move to United States while he was young like so many children from Europe.
Even if we demonstrated that Philip was born in the United States, we would still like to know which part of Europe his ancestors came from.
Currently, a certificate from Lansallos, England, has interesting features. It's not unthinkable that another birth certificate could be found in the United States that is just as promissing as the English certificate.
In Virginia, in 1742, was born a Philip Long. He died in 1826 in the same state. It's just as if this file did not exist, actually. However, from 1740 to 1750, he was able to give birth to other children named Philip Long.
Does the absence of other birth certificates imply that there are no other Philip Long and that our ancestor was not born in the United States? Not at all. It is likely that our ancestor was born in the United States, but no birth certificate was found to confirm it.
Most of the certificates that let us know that an individual was born at that time are rather baptismal certificates in a church, as opposed to birth certificates. Parents who have refused or who simply could not have their child baptized leave to posterity the task of deciphering an imbroglio, a puzzle. What we do not know, it is the proportion of births that have not been taken into note in religious or civil registers. That's the two dollars question!
It is indirectly that we try to reach the origins of Philip. The latter, once in Canada, was said to be of American origin. But, what did the other Loyalists said about their ancestry after they moved to Canada in 1783?
In the case of Archibald MacBeath, it seems that he was born in Scotland since no one of this name was born in the United States and the records bearing this name are all in Scotland. An ideal scenario, that one.
In constructing Table 8, I kept the original text in English, but I added my search results in French (in bold in the last column of the table). You will notice that the soldiers indicated the regiment to which they belonged during the war as a place of residence.
You will find it is very likely that the passengers indicated the location of their last home. For some, this place corresponded to their place of birth. You will certainly be surprised to see the small proportion of passengers who stayed in the same place where they are probably born.
We could repeat the exercise with other muster rolls of provincial loyalist regiments. Is it not surprising that a man named Campbell, probably of Scottish origin, is the captain of a provincial loyalist regiment? To better understand some aspects of this Table 9, consider the case of Dennis Sullivan.
The Campbell clan who ran the company had Scottish stumps, but most of the soldiers were born either in the United States or in England.
There is hope to find relevant information through John Long. However, the number of John Long in the United States at this time is enough to give headaches. Persistence may be able to overcome it.
In fact, apart from the fact that Philip lived in the United States for several years, few clues allow us to believe that he was born in that country.
The oral tradition left to us suggests that Philip was of Scottish origin and lived in Pennsylvania. It is said that Bishop Lang was able, unintentionally, to kick off this oral tradition. In 1987, he was interviewed by Don Hoyt, a reporter for the Telegraph Journal. Here is an excerpt from the text:
His decades of research," Bishop Lang writes, give some credence to the family stories that Philip was American (but possibly born in Scotland or lreland) of Scottish ancestry, from the Pennsylvania region.
Bishop Lang had heard from his own ancestors that Philip was of Scottish origin. He admits, however, that he could not confirm this family belief at the end of his research. Still, he believes Philip could have been born in Scotland or Ireland. In short, he argues that this oral tradition could make sense, nothing more. He did not find anything that can strengthen the credibility of this hypothesis. He also extends his field of research to neighboring Ireland.
It's interesting that he was not the only one at that time to transmit this oral tradition. Lorette Long Prentice chose to write about it. Here is a part of his text that we have already transcribed completely higher.
My father was a descendant of John Philip Long emigrated from Scotland to United States during the Civil War in the States. Lorette, for its part, limited herself to Scotland.
What are the clues that allow us to claim that Philip was originally Scottish?
However, both belong to two different lineages of the family. Whether their comments are credible or not, we must continue our research in this direction.
Mann did not need to say he was from Scotland: Philip did probably realized it. In the United States, Philip had undoubtedly met people from Scotland. He was familiar with the typical language of newly arrived Scots. If Philip had been of Scottish descent, Mann would not have missed the opportunity to write about it. Instead, he wrote that Philip spoke English accurately. What did he mean by that? Was he speaking English from England, or simply English from America?
Could it be that Philip had lived in America since he was a child, had even been born there, and that he spoke an American English that Mann noticed? If Philip had spoken a typical English similar to that found in England, would have mentioned it.
These few words written by Mann deserve attention. While avoiding to make them say what they do not mean, it seemed to me opportune to dare to pull them a little by the hair so to speak.
The visit of Mann and his text deserve to be considered at the same level and significance as a military, civil, or religious document related to Philip's life. Mann's text, at the very least, leaves us puzzled as to Philip's origin.
We already know, according to the United States Historical Data Base (USHDB, 20) 2), Scots and Irish in 1775 accounted for 15% of the US population. This figure is still impressive. Let us remember it.
From a more reliable source, the 1790 federal census, we find that it might be more accurate to talk about 5%. When it comes to considering only Pennsylvania, since tradition suggests that Philip was there, the proportion of Scots and Irish is 13.4% in 1790. There were 58 181. It's more than enough to believe that Philip could have come from this community. Is this sheer number of Scots in the United States alone enough to give support to the hypothesis?
Who are the Scotch-Irish? Many people in the United States, including those who are Scotch-Irish, do not know their ancestral beginnings and what experiences brought about the unique Scotch-Irish culture that helped transform the thirteen British colonies into the United States of America.
A common misconception is that the Scottish-Irish are half Scottish and half Irish. Scotch-Irish are Protestants from lowland Scotland who migrated to northern Ireland in the early 1600s, lived there for several generations, and between 1700 and 1775 emigrated in vast numbers to the British colonies in America.
The term Scotch-Irish is synonymous with "Scots-Irish." These people are also known as "Ulster Scots" and the "Presbyterian Irish." During the 1700s in America they were routinely called the lrish, but the term Scotch-Irish was also used. Before the Irish famine of the 1840s, the overwhelming number of immigrants and their descendents in America were ethnic Scots from Ulster.
Following the influx of lrish immigrants who were Catholic, the term Scotch-Irish has become more commonly known as Scottish Protestants with the roots of the newcomers who have been roundly despised due to their different religion, different customs, and say poverty .
Successive waves of immigration from Scotland during the 18th century brought Presbyterians to the United States at the same time. When Englishmen immigrated to America, they swelled the ranks Protestants at once. For the Scots, this was not the case. And we know that Philip was Protestant.
Religion has also served the citizens of other nationalities to choose their side and often with as much conviction as the Loyalists: they instead went to the opposite camp, that of the patriots. This was the case Scots-Irish. The following text from the Scotch Society of North Carolina is clear about it.
There were approximately 2,640,000 people living in the thirteen British Colonies at the time of the American Revolution, of this amount, about 14% or 370,000, were Scotch-Irish.
Estimates vary as to the number of Scotch-Irish who served in the patriot forces during the American Revolution. Some estimates put the number at approximately 25%, while others are as high as 50%.
Whatever the actual percentage, the Scotch-Irish devotion to the patriotic cause is not surprising given that the colonists are more likely to be Anglican, which was the Established Church, or Roman Catholic. Those colonists who are more likely to be one of three dissenting traditions, each one following doctrines laid down by John Calvin: the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Congregationalists. Even the Indian tribes of the Confederate Iroquois were divided according to religion. The Mohawks, who were Anglican, fought on the loyalist side.
The Oneidas, who were Presbyterians, fought on the patriot side.The Scotch-Irish, as soon as Presbyterians (and now Baptists, too), were alarmed at reports that the Anglican Church would soon have a bishop for America. They were also angered, if not nearly hysterical, because of the Quebec Act passed by Parliament following the French and Indian War. The Quebec Act declares that Quebec's territorial claims extended to the Ohio Valley. The fear was that the Scotch-Irish was being penned in by the Proclamation Line while Roman Catholics from Quebec would come to populate the Ohio Valley.
After the war started at Lexington and Concord, the Scotch-Irish were quick to join the patriot side and fought fervently, with notable success, and in numbers greatly disproportionate to the Scotch-Irish population as a whole. King George III called the American Revolution has "Presbyterian War." And during the war at Hessian officer wrote: Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian rebellion.
Jeannine Dugan (2000) claims, in his book entitled, Colonial Immigration: An Overview, that Scots who immigrated in America sought social isolation rather than confrontation with others inhabitants. Here is what she says:
The Scots were another immigrant group and were definitely distinguishable from the Scotch-Irish. Constant poverty in Scotland caused a wide migration in the middle of the 18th century. It is estimated that about 25,000 Scots immigrated to the colonies in the twelve years before the Revolution. Unlike the Scottish-Irish, the Scottish immigrants rarely ever settled in the frontier regions and were considered to be passive people. The Scots, it seems, do not have a bellicose temperament.
In Pennsylvania, we can not arrive at the exact number of Loyalists, but as noted above we can make some general assumptions. ace previously, many (of course not necessarily all) of the Quakers remained loyal to Britain.
Because of a concentration of Quaker families residing in the vicinity of the city of Philadelphia, we find that Loyalists. But then, Philadelphia was the largest city in America time; we would expect to find a number of people in the world. It must be remembered that Pennsylvania, in the 1770s, was heavily settled in the southeast, but only sparingly in the western, central and north-eastern frontier regions.
The majority of the early settlers of the Scottish and Irish frontier (and Very often mixtures of the two, such as Ulster Scots. Their inbred hatred for the English widely assured the frontier of being Patriot in feeling. There were some instances in which Tories evacuating their homes in the east, took up homesteading in the frontier regions of Pennsylvania.
A little further in the text we can read:
In Pennsylvania ...... British support, maintenance and reward for the Loyalist regiments was practically nonexistent.
It is still possible that Philip was of Scottish origin, that he lived in Pennsylvania, that he was a Protestant and defended the British Crown. Who would have dared to believe that Philip lived part of his life among Francophone Catholics, in a remote region, after having lived the American War of Independence and that he may have even been born on the European continent ? Impossible is not French !
A Philip Long was born in Virginia in 1742. He was Scotch-Irish. Apart from that, nothing. This name became more popular in the 19th century. The population has also increased. Frankly, if you just had to trust the name, it is more likely that Philip is of French, German, Danish or other than Scottish origin.
The name Philip Long is mostly popular in the 18th century in England.
The few Scottish loyalists are rather exceptions to the general rule. Is it enough to make us believe that Philip had Scottish roots? What do you think ?
There are Longs in Germany, so our ancestor was a German. England has hired thousands of German soldiers during the Revolution. Here. The table is well put. Come on, let's celebrate now!
There is no point in elaborating complex equations when a simple equation leads unhindered to the solution. Warning ! There are dangers to rely on a single index to trace the origins of our ancestor. I'm interested, you know, in the convergence of several clues: it's more demanding, but how much safer!
If you ever have the opportunity to use the so-called genealogical databases, you will be amazed at how much the way of writing the family name in many other families varies just as among the Long, Lang, Lung and Lange. To this day, I very much doubt that this index alone is sufficient to believe that Philip was of German origin.
You will agree that Philip was consistent when it came to writing his name. Afterwards, some of these descendants have, it seems, preferred the name of Lang rather than Long.
In 1790, at the census, there were 110,357 original inhabitants approximately 25% of the total population of Pennsylvania.. In 1775, it was believed that Americans of German origin accounted for 6.9% of Pennsylvania's population. Oral history is gaining strength. Even better. There is a Philip Long in the county of Berks populated to 74% of Americans of German origin at the time of the Revolution. Gilles Long even discovered a John Philip Long. Finally, we ride comfortably. What a relief !
I repeat that the databases are incomplete. We do not have all passenger lists that passed from Europe to America in the 18th century.
The Philip Long, who we identified as the patriot of Pennsylvania, could have been born in United States. It may also correspond to the one indicated in Strassburger's list without his birth being registered in Germany. There is no record for John Philip Long either. Yet these individuals did exist. In how many other cases, is this situation repeated? It’s enough not to put the key on one or the other of our assumptions.
The military traditions of German-speaking immigrants also made a significant contribution to revolutionary America. At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, Germans from all over the American colonies formed volunteer militia companies.
General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who had served as a general staff with the Prussian army, volunteered to serve George Washington without pay and was put to work organizing and drilling the ragged volunteers of the Continental Army. Von Steuben's Prussian Discipline and Tactics were to a large degree responsible for the Revolutionists' later military victories, and his manual of regulations formed the basis of the manual of drill and organization used by the United States Army today.
We could not talk about the American Revolution without mentioning the fact that German mercenaries, in large numbers, were fighting alongside the loyalists.
During the American Revolutionary War, Benjamin Franklin recruited Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a Prussian trainer, to train American troops. Von Steuben's organization of the Continental Army was critical to its success. Germans, 30,000 mercenaries, are known as the Hessians. However, many of these Germans took a liking to the enemy's way of life and ended up in the United States.
There is a reason why the participation of Native Americans German is often illustrated using those living in Pennsylvania, notwithstanding the fact that they were very numerous in that State.
Among the most enthusiastic patriots were the Germans. Everywhere the young men responds to the call of Congress for volunteers. The spirit of that response can be judged by the example given by Pennsylvania.
…. Unfortunately we have some knowledge of participation of the Germans of Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York and the New England Colonies, which are almost all muster-rolls and other documents relating to the Revolutionary War were lost in a fire, which in 1800 destroyed the War Department at Washington. But it is well known that the Germans were very numerous in these regiments furnished by these colonies.
Philip was part of a loyalist regiment with a very limited number of soldiers with German roots.
My approach to this quest in unfamiliar territory has been to search for new documents that could shed light on our lantern. In addition, I did not fail to review all the documents that many researchers have agreed to provide me. Finally, I took into account the oral tradition that circulates in our family.
As I knew that the probability of finding revealing documents was low, I thought I should learn about the general context existed at the time of Philip. This perspective has been beneficial to me because I have been able to develop hypotheses about the true origin of Philip. In fact, these assumptions already existed in the minds of many of you, especially those who had on hand documents relating to his military life.
The reading of these documents raised questions, quickly followed by predictions. But, it was quickly realized that confirming a hypothesis, it is not a sinecure.
When it comes to formulating a hypothesis of this kind, one walks in a real minefield. Here's why.
1. The documents are not associated with each other. In order to link these documents, I created a scenario that seems likely to me. You have the right to refuse or accept it. For example, it is likely that Philip had a brother in the loyalist regiments, that they went into exile in Canada in 1783 and that they are of English origin. I have not demonstrated beyond doubt that Philip, our ancestor, was born in Lansallos. For the moment, in the light of my documents, this scenario seems to me the most plausible.
2. All information on the Internet or other sources does not represent all the documents available in libraries, church records, and others. The documents on the Internet, I see them as a sample of which I can not determine the proportion. If I look at a database of 500,000 Irish birth certificates, I cannot find out how much Irish people are not registered in this database. Archivists have been doing this work for only a few years. I imagine there are still boxes to go up from the basement so to speak.
3. Philip is hard to follow because he's been a nomad. With him, we jump from one country to another, from one job to another and perhaps from one continent to another. Had it not been for well-preserved military documents, it would have been difficult for us to know more about his life before his marriage with Marie-Julie. These military documents have strongly helped to raise all kinds of questions that are familiar to you.
4. The oral tradition may have been contaminated by assumptions to the point that this entanglement has, I believe, skewed the efforts of research. We ended up not knowing what belongs to the oral tradition, that coming from the children of Philip, and what belongs to the fabulation.
5. From the birth of Philip's children, the Long family has always lived in the same social, religious and linguistic environment. Philip, moreover, did not belong to this milieu. We have the impression that he never stopped taking refuge after having set foot in Canada in 1783.
The Loyalist universe simply does not fit with the landscape sociolinguistics landscape of the francophones from Témiscouata and Madawaska. Anyone who dares to approach this loyalist universe risks a lifting of shields in his own family, that is francophones. The dialectics Francophone/Anglophone has distant origins too. I still felt comfortable exploring this interesting and unknown universe. I was assured that our family was able to take a look at the past while remaining faithful to its contemporary way of life and to the identity it has freely given itself over time. Before entering this universe of ancestral origins, I left on the threshold most of my prejudices, whether founded or not.
6. I was looking for clues to Philip's origins. An clue could be a birth certificate, the number of Long in a region the country of origin of Philip's comrades-in-arms, a historical document on the oral tradition, a population census, a name in a database, and even knowledge of the political and religious context in which Philip lived in United States at the time of the Revolution, among others.
Some clues ended up representing, for me, more value than others. I also realized that the convergence of several indices would eventually outpace the assumptions between them.
On the basis of the evidence, it appears that the American hypothesis and the English hypothesis are inseparable. Philip was an American during a period of his life. Nobody disputes this fact. The question we have always asked ourselves is this:
On one hand, if he was not born in the United States, he is more likely to have been born in England than in another country. He was part of a loyalist movement English and Protestant. Such characteristics are rooted in a family environment above all.
On the other hand, if he was born in America, his parents or grandparents could come from England. The identity of Philip cannot be an improvisation to answer military requirements or to ensure its survival on a territory where the inhabitants had to register in a loyalist regiment or in a patriotic regiment.
In addition, the documentation I have collected makes me believe that Philip had English origins for a stronger reason than Scottish or German origins. The decision to prefer one hypothesis over another is not based on a single clue.
The birth certificate of Lansallos is a doscovery. True. However, nothing builds a bridge between this certificate and our ancestor. No document in the family establishes the much desired link. On the contrary, the oral tradition goes against it, against the current.
My documentation adds a flat to the oral tradition. It is difficult to believe that a native Scotsman was that much convinced of the cause of Loyalists. Loyalists spoke the same language, but their beliefs drove them away from the Scots as well as from the Germans. Admittedly, there are many exceptions. I will not resume my research because of the exceptions.
The people who are convinced that Philip was born in Scotland know it now: the challenge seems daunting, titanic. I am not yet sure that the oral tradition for this purpose comes from Philip's relatives. It could have been developed long after. Some believe it, by the way.
The most startling discovery for me was not getting out of the darkness of a particular document. I mostly learned that my ancestor was of Protestant religion and that he is remained true to his beliefs.
It seems to us unreasonable today that he is not present at the Catholic baptism of his children. He was, apparently, clinging to his beliefs that they dared not deny. His religious beliefs were more strong, it seems, than the needs of those around him. It does not matter if he had wrong or right reasons to do so. He valued this deep identity.
He has participated actively to the loyalist movement, we know it. His Protestant allegiance and his attitude towards royalty have led him to war and, in the end, to exile. These issues were devastating for anyone making choices of this order.
The search for its origins will not stop. It will be necessary to wait until archivists place other names and documents in the databases. We must not forget the countless documents that have not yet been digitized. I have a lot of hope on that side.
My greatest desire would be for someone to teach us about the daily life of this family at the turn of the 19th century. Reading the Gilles Long's book, I thought a lot about the difficulties that Philip and Marie-Julie met. They have, together, experienced unbearable family tragedies, such as famine and, above all, the death of several children.
Nevertheless, our ancestors knew how to take their game and adapt to their often hostile environment. It's up to us to do the same! The result was, you will agree, all to our advantage .....