Exile, Choice, and Loyalism: Taking and Restoring Dignity in the American Revolution

Abstract

Taking a cue from Bernadette Atuahene's concept of “dignity takings” and her insight that government expropriation inflicts more than economic injury, this essay analyzes how American revolutionaries defined political membership, penalized and expropriated British loyalists, and then allowed some to join the American polity in the decade after the Revolution. Many recovered their property, professions, and legal privileges. However, because most loyalists could choose to remain loyal or join the Revolution, they did not lose human dignity as Atuahene defines it. Case studies of two reintegrating lawyers, Richard Harison and William Rawle, explore loyalism, the loss of dignities that loyalists suffered, and some paths toward reintegration. Their appointment as federal attorneys helped make the government conversant in the common law, British statutes, and the law of nations, which in turn supported the Federalist goal of reintegrating the United States into the Atlantic World: achieving, in other words, national dignity.

Dignity Takings and Dignity Restoration: Creating a New Theoretical Framework for Understanding Involuntary Property Loss and the Remedies Required

“…Since both dignity takings and constitutional takings are narrowly defined, the middle category is expansive. Certain authors in this symposium argue that their case study falls into this category (Hartog 2016; Hulsebosch 2016; Kedar 2016). To preview one example discussed later in more detail, Hartog (2016) argues that, from the perspective of the women who were subject to coverture, the fact that marriage required them to forfeit their property to their husbands was not dehumanizing or infantilizing, and hence there was no dignity taking.…”

“…Using the case of the American Revolution, Hulsebosch (2016) also proposes limits on what should be considered a dignity taking. As part of the indignities tolerated during war and other atrocities, property rights are often disheveled.…”

“…But, as the stories of Richard Harison and William Rawle highlight, Loyalists regained their ability to vote, hold office, and practice their professions. Harison and Rawle differed in many ways—they had varying degrees of Loyalism and suffered different indignities during the war—but, all the same, their political standing was restored and they were allowed to reach their highest professional potential, as demonstrated by the fact that both were appointed by George Washington to serve as the Federal District Attorney in their respective states (Hulsebosch 2016). Although American revolutionaries did not return the properties of their Loyalist brethren, they initiated a restorative process that affirmed their agency, and restored their dignity.…”

“…To further develop and refine the concepts of dignity takings and dignity restoration, symposium authors consider their application beyond the South African context. Case studies include: the separation of Hopi people from their sacred lands (Richland 2016); the requirement that all married women give their property to their husbands under the laws of coverture (Hartog 2016); the dispossession of Bedouins and Arab citizens in Israel (Kedar 2016); the looting, burning, and destruction of African American property during and after the 1921 Tulsa race riot (Brophy 2016); the property taken from Loyalists during the course of the American Revolution (Hulsebosch 2016); the forced evictions in China intended to create space for its rapidly expanding cities (Pils 2016); the use of racially restrictive covenants in the United States (Rose 2016); and the taking of Jewish property in France and the Netherlands during World War II (Veraart 2016). By testing the concepts of dignity takings and dignity restoration in a variety of cases, contributors are able to confirm, extend, or revise my original formulation of these concepts.…”

Takings as a Sociolegal Concept: An Interdisciplinary Examination of Involuntary Property Loss

“…In a Law & Social Inquiry symposium, several scholars from various disciplines have moved beyond the South African case to empirically examine and extend the concepts using a wide array of other cases, including the separation of Hopi people from their sacred lands (Richland 2016); the dispossession and displacement of Israel's Arab citizens (Kedar 2016); the looting, burning, and destruction of African American property during and after the Tulsa race riots (Brophy 2016); the taking of Jewish property in France and the Netherlands during World War II (Veraart 2016); the forced evictions in China intended to create space for its rapidly expanding cities (Pils 2016); the racially restrictive covenants in the United States (Rose 2016); the property taken from the loyalists after the American Revolution (Hulsebosch 2016); and the requirement that all married women give their property to their husbands under the laws of coverture (Hartog 2016). Through rigorous empirical work, these scholars have greatly improved and clarified the dignity takings and dignity restoration frameworks (Atuahene 2016).…”