Island in search of greener pastures were its potential farming community.
As a result Shelburne was short of people to clear its hinterland and create the farms that were necessary to support the town’s economy. It had acquired a few merchants, but they were self-focused men who neglected to organize the town’s overall economic framework. Also, those farmers it did have were naively optimistic about the future and built fine houses before securing the income stream that would pay for them.36
Lord Selkirk noticed how Loyalists in Prince Edward Island were inclined to fall into debt. John Laird, who settled at Lot 50 along the Vernon River, was typical. “He could not deny himself luxuries” and thus bought expensive goods on credit. It took him six to seven years before he paid off his debts, “and in that time he built a comfortable house, acquired cattle and sheep and cleared about 50 acres.”37 However, Shelburne Loyalists could not take such a long-term view. They had to limit their losses and leave. Money had been squandered on grandiose, ill-conceived schemes and too little had been invested in providing a workforce that could catch fish, build ships, grow crops, and cut timber.
Shelburne’s isolated location on the Atlantic side of the peninsula was another disadvantage. It was eclipsed by the rapid growth of Saint John and was only a minor player in the timber trade, since the industry’s prime focus was much farther to the east along the Northumberland Strait. Although Shelburne had been well placed to take advantage of the lucrative West Indies trade, it was badly hurt economically by American traders who flouted the Navigation Acts that were intended to exclude them. The mushrooming growth in timber exports to Britain, which occurred from 1815, would benefit Pictou, Charlottetown, and later the Miramichi, but it would completely bypass Shelburne. Lieutenant Colin Campbell of the Argyll Highlanders Regiment (74th) wanted to live in a town but rejected Shelburne on hearing “some unfavourable accounts” about it, settling instead in nearby St. Andrews, which he was told “has a good harbour and is well situated for the fishing and lumbering business.”38 Campbell made up his mind about Shelburne by August 1783 — only months after it had been opened up to settlers. Many more Loyalists would have done the same.
With the ending of provisions and portable pensions in 1787, Shelburne emptied quickly. It had fewer than three thousand inhabitants by the following year. To add to its economic woes it suffered from severe droughts and fires, a smallpox epidemic, and its black Loyalists, the principal source of cheap labour, were leaving for Sierra Leone.39
When the Reverend Munro visited in 1795 he found that Shelburne had only 150 families and that there were fewer that two thousand people in the vicinity. By the time the Methodist minister, William Black, visited in 1804, its population had shrunk to one-tenth of its original size.40 The Reverend W. Bennett, an Anglican missionary appointed by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to Liverpool (Nova Scotia), observed its “small settlements along the sea coast … many of the houses much demolished and without inhabitants, having been under a necessity of removing through the poverty of the Country.” It had “a neat English Church and a small Baptist Meeting House” and a dwelling house used by Methodists for their services. “The society of Whites and Blacks” numbered between fifty and sixty, living in circumstances that “in general are low,” with “most of their living” being derived from fishing.41 Joshua Marsden, a Methodist preacher, found Shelburne “almost deserted” in 1815, a description confirmed by the Reverend Gavin Lang, a Presbyterian missionary, when he saw it nearly fifteen years later:
The harbour of Shelburne is well known in America as being one of the most beautiful and secure…. When viewed in the distance Shelburne looks somewhat considerable, but alas, on closer inspection, desolation and decay manifest themselves all around. Shelburne has fallen, I am afraid, never more to rise, for the few who remain neither possess wealth nor influence, and are in our mind strongly contrasted with the active and highly polished sons of Caledonia.42
Loyalists drawing lots for their lands in 1784, watercolour by C.W. Jefferys.
The fortunate Sons of Caledonia had settled on the east side of the province, which by this time was benefiting from the growing timber trade with Britain. Like Shelburne, Digby was almost entirely Loyalist, although smaller in size. And, like Shelburne, it had a naturally good harbour but had mediocre land, and it, too, ended up in a spiral of economic decline. Its badly organized and demoralized settlers suffered terribly from the confusion and delay they experienced over their land allocations. The Connecticut-born Amos Botsford, agent for the New York Refugee Association, had the task of organizing their grants, but he was an autocratic and divisive character who left in 1784, having made a bad situation considerably worse.43 With the delayed arrival of provisions in the following year, tempers frayed, and the disturbances that broke out had to be quelled by troops sent from Halifax. It would take some fifteen years before the settlers finally resolved their land ownership rights.44
Despite this turmoil, Digby had impressed Jacob Bailey when he visited in 1786. It was “a very handsome town … the situation of it is [an] exceedingly well chosen site both for the fisheries and every other trade adopted to the Province.” With the arrival of Loyalists the town grew sixfold to a population of 2,500 and “the country about it [was] clearing fast of the woods.45 Some three hundred families were to be accommodated around St. Mary’s Bay and the Sissibou River, but more than one-third never reached their lands, and by 1795 only sixty-eight families remained.46 By 1802 a consortium had been formed to market Digby properties to the outside world.47 Digby’s Loyalist residents were selling up and moving on:
[A]s it is probable that the peace which has lately taken place, may occasion many military and other transient persons to look for settlements in these provinces and some such may incline towards Digby … several gentlemen of that place [Digby] have associated for the purpose of removing … such difficulties as are most likely to oppose themselves to new settlers … they have selected and secured a number of commodious house lots … a proportion of these adjoining the water are adapted to trading persons — others are calculated for mechanics — and a few more for such as are only concerned in having an agreeable spot for a house, and room for a garden. The first applicant will have the first choice, and so on with other applicants in succession, until the whole are sold at the prices fixed.48
The Loyalists who streamed into the Maritimes created an instant population, but their relocation was far from straightforward. They had come as refugees and occupied land, principally in the Bay of Fundy region to satisfy the British government’s defence concerns, this being an area of prime military importance. However, although ex-soldiers could act as guardians of territory and take up arms quickly if need be, their training and experience did not necessarily prepare them for the rigours of pioneer life. Also, a location chosen for its military value did not always provide top-quality land. Beyond this was the seething discontent felt over the government’s failure to administer land grants satisfactorily. The problem was compounded in Nova Scotia by the fact that most of the best agricultural land had already been granted to New Englanders. Another problem was the shortage of women. A substantial number of Loyalists were young, single men who had served in the disbanded Loyalist regiments or as regulars in the British Army. Men from the Duke of Cumberland’s regiment went as far as asking the government for help in getting wives, as there were few eligible women in the district in which they lived. There were only ten married women in the regiment. Solving this severe gender imbalance was a pressing concern in many parts of the Maritimes.49
Loyalist grievances and complaints fed a festering resentment toward Britain and growing dissatisfaction over land allocations.50 These factors, plus an ongoing desire for a better situation, stimulated a constant movement of Loyalists both within and from the Maritime provinces. In fact, the most remarkable feature about the Loyalist influx was the speed and extent of the exodus that followed
