10 The principal metropolitan centre of Loyalist or Tory control during the Revolutionary War was always New York. It had played that role in colonial America before the revolution—a cosmopolitan commercial and industrial hub. By the time of General Washington’s retreat and the arrival of General William Howe’s army in September 1776, the city’s population numbered only about 5,000. Within a year this figure had doubled as the presence of troops increased and Loyalist refugees arrived from neighbouring provinces or counties under patriot control. By the end of the war, New York had become home to about 70,000 people (Bell 1983: 6).

11 New York remained a commercial centre during the war, supplying the civilian population with a seemingly endless variety of material goods, either imported from Britain or secured from local suppliers. Occupation by the British Army and the recruitment of Loyalist or Royal Provincial regiments meant that an increasingly larger proportion of manufacture and supply was directed to a sizeable officer clientele and the rank and file. The New York Gazette (NYG) and the Weekly Mercury featured advertisements offering weapons, portraits, uniforms, cloth and accoutrements, metal smithing, camp equipment, leather goods and embroidery to name only a few.2

12 A contemporary view of New York in the November 1776 issue of TheUniversal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure shows a city extending a little less than two miles inland from Battery Point (Fig. 3). Most manufacturing and mercantile establishments were located midway, near the Hudson and East River waterfronts. This workshop portion of the city had a dozen or more Loyalist producers including sword cutler Charles Oliver Bruff, gunsmith Jacob Allen and sword maker James Potter, all on Maiden Lane. Potter’s contribution was notable, making more than 1,500 horseman’s sabres from British steel for mounted Royal Provincial and British Army units, most of them used during the southern campaign near the end of the war (Dobozy 2000: 30-38; Goldstein 2007: 14-25).

13 Lewis Fueter (1746-1784) came by his trade naturally. The son of Swiss immigrant Daniel Christian Fueter, Lewis had accompanied his family from Bern to London in 1752 and then to New York two years later. Although trained in continental traditions, Daniel soon adapted to Anglo-American tastes which, in this period, often meant the Rococo style. While a watered down version of fashion imported to England from France, the English and American Rococo silver still had a swagger and movement among its sinuous S and C curves, scrolls, shells and cartouches (Quimby 1995: 23-24, 230). Fueter senior took his son in as an apprentice while practicing in Southbury, Connecticut, during a three year hiatus between 1765-68. The next year he was back in New York where a partnership between father and son was announced in the New York Gazette in January 1769. Within a few months, however, the partnership ended when Daniel returned to Switzerland with most of his family, leaving only Lewis and another son, Daniel.

14 Lewis continued on his own, announcing a new location for his shop on Queen Street near Maiden Lane in May 1774. The next year he became a Freeman of the city. As a major port, New York always maintained a significant military presence and Fueter found a considerable amount of work among the British officer clientele. In 1773, for example, he completed a large salver—now in the collections of the New York Historical Society—for Captain Thomas Sowers of the Royal Engineers. The Rococo style engraving is said to have been done by a London trained craftsman because of its high quality (Hofer 2005: 159, 161). In that instance this may be true, but the strict division of labour typical of English shops did not necessarily translate to America where the maker could also be the engraver (Fales 1973; Glanville 1987; Kaufman 1969: 61; Ward and Ward 1979: 38). Thus Lewis Fueter likely both made and engraved some of the pieces he was commissioned to do. Lewis’s knowledge of metallurgy was likely learned from his father who promoted himself as a goldsmith who bought and refined gold and silver, gilded and analyzed the properties of each (Quimby 1995: 230). In a 1775 advertisement in the Gazette Lewis advertised his relocation “at the Coffee House Bridge” and advised services that included “guilding in all its branches” (Ensko 1983 [1948]: 57). He is also known to have assayed gold coinage and an “LF” (Lewis Fueter) counter stamp matching those on spoons in the collection of the Winterthur Museum has also been found on several coins in the period (Quimby 1995: 237; Roehrs 2005: 44-47).

15 Lewis Fueter’s work for the British Army was combined with a pacifist religious upbringing. The family had converted to the Moravian Church, likely during their short stay in London (Calhoon 1973: 386; Magee 1984: 110-19; Quimby 1995: 235). With the outbreak of hostilities at Bunker Hill in June, 1775, tensions reached new heights in the Thirteen Colonies. The next summer with General Howe’s army threatening Manhatten, gangs of patriots ranged through the city intent on confronting known or suspected Loyalists or Tories. A determined neutrality or at least a non-commitment to bearing arms was not good enough and one must suspect that Fueter’s religious persuasion and army clientele marked him as suspect.3 In any event, one of these mobs caught up with him and several others on August 12. A letter written from Staten Island by an unknown Tory reports: “The persecution of the loyalists continues unremitted. Donald McLean, Theophilus Hardenbrook, young Fueter, the silversmith, and Rem Rapelje of Brooklyn, have been cruelly rode on rails, a practice most painful, dangerous and, till now, peculiar to the humane population of New England” (Jones 1879: 596-97).

16 It is not difficult to imagine the hardening of one’s attitude after such treatment and, not surprisingly, Fueter stayed on following the British Army’s occupation of the city in September. According to the late Ian Quimby of the Winterthur Museum, most of Fueter’s commissions during the war “were for military accoutrements such as camp cups and at least one cross-belt plate, the latter being the only known American example” (1995: 235). The New Brunswick Museum, however, has two highly decorated silver sword belt plates made by Lewis Fueter for Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hewlett of DeLancey’s Brigade and Ensign cum Lieutenant Justus Earle of the New Jersey Volunteers, both Loyalist regiments which settled in New Brunswick in significant numbers (Wright 1972: 65-66).4 The reverse side of each is stamped L. FUETER5 (Figs. 4 and 5).

17 There is one other silver sword belt plate, also from the 4th Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers matching the design of the Justus Earle example except for the initials “PC” standing for Major Phillip van Cortland.6 This plate is in an American private collection and independent scholar Todd Braisted notes in personal communication of July 7, 2006, that it was almost certainly made by Fueter. A fourth belt plate of gilt over brass made for an unknown officer of the King’s American Regiment and held in the collections of the Canadian War Museum bears some similarity to Fueter’s work but ultimately may have been designed by another smith or engraver (Fig. 6). Finally, there is another and later version of a gilt over brass belt plate for the same regiment, again in a private collection in the United States. It is unmarked but distinctly resembles the engraving style of the DeLancey’s and New Jersey examples and is therefore attributed to Fueter (Fig. 7). 7

18 Whether Quimby’s cross-belt plate reference was to an example from DeLancey’s Brigade, the New Jersey Volunteers or another Royal Provincial or British regiment is not known. Originally descended from British Army waist belt buckles and then waist belt plates, the officer’s sword belt plate affixed to a belt over the right shoulder became almost universal by 1776 (Lefferts 1926: 193). This change was likely due to the greater ease and quickness with which the belt could be worn, as opposed to under the waistcoat or coat. It also provided greater access to the sword. Initially the shoulder belt plate was simply a waist belt plate worn diagonally with two studs at one end and a hook at the other. Soon, however, the markings on the plate shifted to a vertical orientation from the horizontal (Calver 1950: 176-77; Parkyn 1956: 1).

19 Engravings on plates were often quite plain. Infantry regiments had been numbered in the line following the Warrant of 1747, appearing on the plate as Roman numerals along with a Crown, Royal Cypher or both by the war’s outbreak.8 Engravings were sometimes supplemented by a spray of leaves, usually bay laurel, with a few exhibiting somewhat more complexity. Officer’s plates were either silver or gilt over brass and oval or rectangular. Increasingly they became more ornamental than functional. This change echoed the waning power of the sword in comparison to the bayonet during the war (Neumann 1973: 51). Still, the sword was emblematic of status and rank and many officers of the British Army and Royal Provincials carried them on parade and in battle formation (Elting 1974: 33-35, 46-47; Lefferts 1926; Smith & Kiley 2008).

20 In the British Army, wearing only the sword belt appears to have been restricted to senior regimental or battalion officers while more junior officers were sometimes armed with muskets or fusils and thus had a second belt over the left shoulder to carry a cartridge box. In this case, the scabbards or frogs for the sword and bayonet were usually combined with the sword belt remaining on the outside and the plate either having a purely ornamental function or connecting the two belts with its hook and studs.9 There is visual and documentary evidence that Royal Provincial officers also wore cross belts.10 An orderly book for DeLancey’s Brigade dated March 2, 1778—and printed in 1917—notes that: “As - silver Plates for the Bayonet Belts & Epaulettes must be made on purpose, each Officer will request the Pay Master of the Battalion to procure him two Silver Epaulet & a Silver Plate for his Belt to form & Device already determined” (Kelby: 1917: 47).11

21 Enlisted men in both forces wore cross belts with belt plates, usually simpler in design and of brass or a copper alloy like bronze. These progressed through the various stages of wear as with the officers, changing from a horizontal to vertical orientation, although the Royal Welch Fusiliers entered the conflict still with waist belts and plates with a shoulder belt for the cartridge box (Calver 1950: 161-66; Troiani and Kocher 2007: 5). In addition—especially for Royal Provincials—supply sometimes depended on home grown sources and, instead of a hanger, a hunting sword would be used. Irregularity of clothing, kit or weaponry could be and often was indifferent of rank.

22 In contrast to regimental colours, no warrant covered the design of belt plates at the beginning of the war (Calver 1950: 176). In comparison with most British belt plate designs, Lewis Fueter’s marked and attributed plates are almost riotous in their detail. Ironically, this appears to be in part because he derived some inspiration from English heraldry. Originally descended from classical times when military leaders used identifying figures on their shields, heraldry gradually developed in Europe, approaching a strict code of form by the time of the Crusades. Royalty adopted coats of arms, and while the warrior in society continued to be celebrated, family descendents, by and large the nobility, assumed the honour. Armorial ensigns were placed on buildings, furniture, monuments and floors. In England, by the reign of Richard III, heralds were incorporated as a collegiate body.

23 The age of chivalry and jousting tournaments furthered the heraldic movement with the college attempting to regulate use and assumption among families. This became a problem as those with wealth attempted to acquire noble distinction. Inevitably, without the true power to exclude, the college declined, especially after Cromwell and the Restoration. The form of the coat of arms also changed. At the time of Richard I, the shield or centrepiece was surmounted by a helmet and above that a crista or crest resembling a plume of feathers. For most English kings after Richard, crowns were placed above the helmet and crest. Eventually the crest developed beyond the plume or crown and assumed a range of form, including animals, foliage and mythological creatures. In many instances, the helmet gradually disappeared but the crest remained. Mottos were also distinguishing features on coats of arms, usually supporting the crest, the arms or both. Some mottos related to family and its achievements but many changed over time, losing whatever association they once may have had and eventually becoming mere sayings reflecting some predominant passion, moral or religious expression (Fairbairn 1905: v-vi; Washbourne 1882: 9-32).

24 Armorials were no doubt acquired by those without lineage, but it became far more common for the urban well to do and lesser gentry to use personal devices suggesting the family name—apples representing Appelton or, in a more subtle allusion, laurel for Noble (Glanville 1987: 200; Kenk 1963: 169). Other devices included the owner’s initials in cipher as was the case for a 16th century lawyer and his wife, sometimes figures on jewellery like seal rings or, outside of London, a manufacturer’s mark.12 These figures essentially replaced the shield in the composition of the arms.

25 Regimental colours also featured armorials and personal devices descending from the lieutenant colonel. However, the warrants of 1747 and 1751 largely abolished these distinctions with the intent of swaying allegiance away from the colonel and toward the Crown (Lawson 1941: 170-71; Sumner 2001: 3-5). Those regiment-assigned numbers began conforming to a more standard design which included Roman numerals surrounded by a wreath of roses and thistles under a crown on both the King’s and the regimental colours. There were some variances. Sometimes the King’s colour would have its number centred, surrounded by laurel and the regimental colour with roses and thistles. The motto was generally dropped although those regiments of the “Old Corps” with “ancient devices” or royal badges were permitted to bear them on their colours with mottos as applicable. Thus, for example, the 3rd Regiment, or Buffs, displayed a dragon on their regimental colour and the Royal Welch Fusiliers sported the three ostrich feathers of the Prince of Wales. Each of these would have heraldic overtones.13

26 Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hewlett of the 3rd Battalion, DeLancey’s Brigade was a native of Hempstead, New York, on Long Island, and a veteran soldier, having served in the Seven Years War. An outspoken and prominent Loyalist, he was sought by the Continental Congress which had ordered his imprisonment at all costs (Dallison 2003: 90). Hewlett’s belt plate measures 7.5 x 4.8 cm and features the Royal Monogram G III R at top, above a Crown with two palm branches on either side over the personal cipher R H for Richard Hewlett and, below, the motto, FIDE ET FORTITUDINE with laurel branches on either side. The plate has a decorative border. The motto stands for “By Faith and Fortitude” but has no relationship to the heraldry of brigade commander Oliver DeLancey, battalion commander Gabriel Ludlow or Hewlett himself, and must by then have become a common expression. Heraldic design is almost certainly the source for the personal cipher replacing the shield and a likely source for the palm branches as crest with motto at the base. It was well known that palm, and especially laurel were used as crest figures in heraldry and domestic silver, but it was not observed in use for the DeLancey, Ludlow or Hewlett families (Fales 1973: 239, 242).14 The Crown used is that of George I, later in service to George II and III as well as William IV. Queen Victoria adopted a new style. The plate has no engraved military unit designation.

27 Laurel had been used on the regimental colours of the Royal Welch Fusiliers before 1751 and on the Kings colours of several others thereafter. There are examples of palm and laurel on the colours of British Foot Regiments during the turn of the 17th century and another instance where the portrait of Marlborough is surrounded by a laurel wreath (Lawson 1940: 53, 144). Adding to the personal nature of the belt plate is its attachment to a sword belt/ scabbard combination of vegetable-dyed leather. Normally, such issue, at least to British troops, would appear as buff, black or white in colour. Like the British officer, the Royal Provincials were responsible for their own clothing, sashes, swords, gorgets and belt plates. Some of this was supplied from overseas, but obviously not everything, and irregularities in dress continued. In Hewlett’s case, the belt and scabbard may have formed part of his earlier service. As late as 1782, Lt. George Campbell of the King’s American Regiment would complain that no two officers looked the same on parade.15

28 Ensign Justus Earle’s belt plate measures 7.5 x 5 cm and is similar in appearance to Colonel Hewlett’s but has a different figure on either side of the Crown, another motto and the appearance of the battalion designation where the DeLancey’s example has none. The decorative border has also changed. The designer, probably Fueter, may have used branches of the box-wood tree—a substitute for palm in more northerly climates—or simply a generic leaf form akin to a pattern on at least one British Army gorget of the period (Chevalier and Gheerbrant 1996: 116; Phillips and Rix 2002: 126; Troiani and Kochan: 2007: 12). Once again, the motto does not relate to the regimental and battalion commanders or the owner and may be roughly translated as vigorous love of country. Below the motto is 1V N.J.V. BATT. Earle was a native of Hackensack, New Jersey and became an Ensign in the 4th New Jersey in April, 1777. He was captured and exchanged twice before his promotion to the 3rd New Jersey in late December 1781 (Jones 1927: 69-70). Presumably this plate was produced at some point between his initial appointment and second capture in 1779 and he was able to conceal it from the enemy since it would have represented a valuable souvenir.

29 A third belt plate to consider is the gilt over brass example in the collections of the Canadian War Museum. It has no stamp and, at 7.3 x 4.8 cm, compares to both the DeLancey’s and New Jersey Volunteers examples. Its border is like the DeLancey’s plate but similarities fade thereafter. An undulating band of what appears to be bellflowers or bellflower husks sweep across the top above a crown. A cipher of an owner does not appear. Instead the motto PRO REGE ET PATRIA within a garter surrounds the Royal Cypher G 3 R over the title The King’s American Regiment. Scroll work and a display of arms support the garter on either side below the crown. On the reverse is a handwritten inscription 1780, Fanning’s Regt. Dragoons (Allen 1983: 45). Edmund Fanning was Lieutenant Colonel of the King’s American Regiment and was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia in 1783. This plate was obviously made after both the Hewlett and Earle examples. Its gilt colour also reflects the protocol of matching the accoutrements like belt plates, gorgets and epaulettes with the uniform’s lace. In contrast both DeLancey’s and the New Jersey Volunteers had silver lace and thus silver fittings (Lawson 1961: 115-21).

30 The final plate is another example of gilt over brass composition, again for the King’s American Regiment. While it has a comparable garter with motto surrounding the Royal Cypher GR, a display of arms, cannon, flags and a familiar decorative border and is not marked verso, there are significant differences. The size at 7.6 x 6.4 cm represents a slight increase but the most obvious contrast is the large figure of bellflower husk festoons dominating the top of the plate above the crown. There is also a return to a double figure motif with the spray of laurel branches at the bottom. The numeral “4”enclosed by the laurel signifies the regiment’s ascension to the American Establishment in March of 1781. This, according to the On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies, “guaranteed their officers half pay at the end of hostilities, confirmed their rank in British North America, and allowed the unit to purchase distinctive clothing directly from England.”16 Although this might have included belt plates and gorgets, the engraving style on the King’s American plate corresponds with Fueter’s examples, especially the lettering, cypher, borders and the use of dual figures. The 1780 inscribed plate from the regiment appears somewhat primitive by comparison, as if fashioned in a folk art style.

31 It is clear that these belt plates exhibit a successive increase of formal presentation through the movement of the royal cypher to a central position within a garter. Individual characteristics typified by personal cyphers have ended and thus invite comparison with the changes wrought on regimental colours at mid century. Wider comparisons with other Loyalist and British belt plates tend to confirm a comparable process, always realizing that there were no written standards, only trends (Parkyn 1956).17

32 Military design does not exist in a vacuum. The historical development of the belt plate is one strand in a larger mutually shared influence with domestic architecture in Britain during the third quarter of the 18th century. The British Empire’s rapid expansion after the Seven Years War had served to intensify comparisons with ancient Rome. The British elite was educated in the classics, toured the scenes of antiquity and equated its republican virtue, stoicism and righteousness with a new golden age of civilization under Pax Britannica. To aid and protect its growth there was imperial Britain, and to enshrine this power there was a need to imitate it monumentally in stone (Brendan 2008: xvi). Of course other nations have seen themselves as the new Rome but with an empire far larger than that of Emperor Trajan, Britain might well have a better claim than Russia under Ivan the Great or France under Napoleon.

33 In the second volume of Adam’s Works there isa glass (mirror) and commode table installed at Syon House. Of special interest at the centre of the mirror is a peltoid shield with two sprays of laurel behind it (Oresko 1975: 178). A similar laurel figure without the shield can be seen on the DeLancey’s, New Jersey Volunteers and Kings American regimental plates. In the same volume were designs for chimney pieces in the third drawing room and a dressing room for the Earl of Derby’s townhouse in Grosvenor Square (Fig. 8). The example in the drawing room included another peltoid shield at the top of the mirror with two sprigs of palm, reminiscent of the top figure on the DeLancey belt plate (Fig. 9).

34 Seventeenth-century heraldic designs on silver included these figures; architect Robert Gibbs had used them as memorial accents earlier in the 18th century and Adam employed them without necessarily evoking any military connections (Fales 1973: 239; Friedman 1984: 99, 101; Glanville 1987: 213). His 1763 tea pavilion with palm fronds for Sir Lawrence Dundas in Hertfordshire and laurel wreaths as part of ceiling and wall decoration confirm the usage of these figures (Lees-Milne 1947: 29; Oresko 1975: 114). But the notion of imperial Britain through force of arms was a strong thread in Pax Brittannica and this appears to have found greater impact during the American Revolution.18

35 Lewis Fueter had certainly connected the two in New York. Laurel sprays were used on the waist and shoulder belt plates of several British regiments sent to America while laurel and palm were featured on the colours of several Hessian regiments.19 Print culture very possibly influenced their usage through a book on heraldry—perhaps a later edition of John Guillim’s A Display of Heraldry (Ward and Ward 1979: 76), a first edition of The Works in Architecture or a publication like The Universal Magazine of Knowledge andPleasure. The latter served as a reliable barometer of popular taste in terms of content and illustrations and by the summer of 1780 was featuring maps of several American provinces with title surrounds in palm sprays and bellflower festoons. This is comparable to Adam’s designs for silver which by this point had entered a larger market through Matthew Boulton’s Soho works in Birmingham where silver and silver plate were manufactured (Rowe 1965: 58-65). But perhaps the most striking example of Adam’s reach were two illustrations of his projects in the December 1782 and August 1783 editions of The Universal Magazine. These included his design for a monument to Major John Andre erected in Westminster Abbey and the front elevation of Caen Wood (Kenwood), the Earl of Mansfield’s estate north of London which Adam remodelled between 1764 and 1779. Ongoing work had been featured in the brothers’ Works (1773) but of more significance is the fact that no other prominent British architect was mentioned in The Universal Magazine during the Revolutionary Waryears. While unlikely to have influenced Fueter’s work, their inclusion is another indication of how Adamdefined the period. Thus it was surely Adamesque if bellflower swags or festoons appeared on title surrounds for maps or anywhere else in print or on object.20

36 The design of Col. Hewlett’s belt plate uses laurel beneath his initials and palm under the crown. The Romans had made laurel a symbol of military and intellectual glory within its larger context of immortality. Palm was also known in the ancient world and later in the more general terms of victory, regeneration and immortality. By the middle of the 17th century palm had become a popular surround for armorials on domestic silver symbolizing conjugal love (Glanville 1987: 213). While the marriage bed may not have been what Fueter intended in the 1770s, the figure was at least back in style at that time, along with laurel and bellflower festoons (Fales 1973: 242). In ecclesiastical heraldry, palm branches represent the martyr triumphant and its use by Fueter was possibly inspired by his Moravian religion and sense of unjust treatment at the hands of the rebels (Chevalier and Gheerbrant 1996: 592, 734; Kenk 1963: 177). Its position beneath the crown certainly bore a range of feelings—loyalty and affection seemingly paramount.

37 Less noticed, perhaps, is the decorative border, but its form at least suggests the dentil pattern in the Roman Doric cornice and shown in later applications by pattern book makers like Asher Benjamin (1969: 40, 46). Alternatively, it could reflect the early English influence of Norman crenelated moulding (Harris 1977: 146). In any event, given the care in the fashioning of the plate, a random border feature seems uncertain, especially since the New Jersey and King’s American examples have specific patterns as well, all of them different. The border patterns of all three have similarities to selected illustrations in the four volume publication of Sir William Hamilton’s collection of Greek pottery in 1766—a significant contribution to the knowledge of ancient design and one Adam would have known well (Glanville 1973: 218; Rowe 1965: 27-28).

38 Ensign Earle’s belt plate has a similar twofigure arrangement with laurel again framing the owner’s initials with applied motto. Fueter’s choice of foliage next to the crown is unusual in that there is no comparable figure on any other belt plate of the period yet discovered. If indeed boxwood, it was a symbol of immortality, but it was also characterized in terms of resolve and perseverance because of its hard composition (Chevalier and Gheerbrant 1996: 116-17). Like palm and laurel, it was known in classical antiquity. Boxwood is used in the heraldic arms of several British families, mainly Scottish, and the engraver may have drawn inspiration from that source (Kenk 1963: 170).21 The decorative border is somewhat reminiscent of the waterleaf motif used by Adam and illustrated in several panels from the Hamilton publication.22

39 While the 1780 King’s American Regiment belt plate appears similar in some respects to Fueter’s other examples it is rougher, lacking somewhat in proportion and the design crowded. Ultimately, despite its interesting figures and rough charm, it must be attributed to another engraver, an individual who perhaps worked in Fueter’s shop. There were a number of other smiths and/or engravers in New York at this time but only one advised of his work on “officers’ gorgets and sword belt plates”—that being a John Murray from the 52nd Regiment who posted an advertisement in the February 21, 1778, issue of the NYG.23 One would expect engraved plates sent from England to be more formal in appearance as opposed to the less formal folk art. It is possible that blank gorgets and belt plates were supplied through Britain.24 On the other hand, the process of gilding metal was certainly known in America during this period (O’Donnell and Campbell 2000: 49-51). Fueter had advertised his services as a gilder just before the revolution and was no doubt capable of this work.25

40 The band of bellflower husks that cross the first King’s American belt plate are somewhat lost on its busy surface. This is not the case with the dominating festoons of the second plate. Like its predecessor, it is a complex overall design but nothing seems constricted, including the laurel spray enclosing the numeral “4.” The display of arms on this and the preceding plate are also familiar in Adam’s domestic work, supporting the Crown or a cameo of Brittania.26 The general formation of the lettering, especially the “E” and “O” compare well with the Fueter plates while the crisp and sure border, once again, may be traced to the Hamilton examples. It helps that Fueter’s attributed example dispenses with the Fanning plates’s Rococo styled scrollwork, simplifying the composition.

41 The festoons remain the most distinguishing feature not simply because of their size or definition but because they are so identified with the period. Perhaps Fueter saw the earlier plate with its band of husks. It is likely, since the second example appears so obviously to be his work and he may have been asked to redesign the plate on the occasion of the regiment’s placement in the American line. In any event, the earlier plate was replaced, at least officially, and the new design repeated on both the plate and accompanying gorget.27 The significance of the figure must be its application in the service of a military accoutrement where this adornment became a primary iconographic element of a Loyalist soldier’s uniform near the end of the American Revolution. Unlike the palm or laurel, however, which crossed back and forth, generally on a standard plane of meaning, the festoon was a rarity in military iconography.28 Captain H. Oakes Jones notes that the design of the King’s American Regiment example is uncommon, especially the festoon complex which he does not identify, simply commenting in a footnote that “[t]he meaning of the figure is unclear” (1923: 26).

42 The captain’s statement was not out of place in the early 20th century. The festoon was likely never again so prominently featured on military hardware. It’s appearance on the belt plate and the gorget of a prominent Loyalist regiment indicates Fueter’s recognition of the importance of a motif in the characterization of a country and an empire. This process began with the use of palm and laurel and ended with the festoon, one of the most recognizable shapes of Neo-classical design. The first plate issued to the King’s American Regiment may have occurred on the eve of their participation in the southern campaign and thus may have seen the bulk of the fighting. The plate with festoons likely replaced this following the regiment’s return to New York between 1782 and early 1783.29 Despite the fortunes of war having turned against them, Royal Provincials continued to battle fiercely until the end, even raising a new dragoon regiment on Long Island in 1781-82 (Chartrand 2008: 62-64; Dallison 2003: 42-44). A hint of this stubborn desperation must be seen in the progressive design of these belt plates.30

43 As the war neared its end and patriots celebrated the dawning of a new era, British and Americans left behind in New York City dreamt of another continuum, one that began with the victories of 1759, the vast expansion of empire and its confluence with a new age of architectural design based on an accurate reading of the past and brought to material form by Robert Adam (Fleming 1962: 312-13). It is not surprising that a Loyalist like Lewis Fueter would notice iconographic developments across the ocean and hope for the continued preservation of Britain in America (Bonwick 1991: 101). But loyalty to the Crown meant exodus; so he joined the Loyalist shiploads sailing from New York, boarding a vessel for Halifax in 1783 and then on to Jamaica the next year where he drowned in a hurricane that summer.31 Richard Hewlett and Justus Earle came to New Brunswick the same year and settled in Queen’s County. New Brunswickborn folk artist Thomas MacDonald immortalized Earle in a watercolour portrait in 1820 (Fig. 10), six years before his death. Hewlett died in 1789 but his 1785 salt box house still stands in Hampstead Parish on the banks of the Saint John River opposite Long Island which he named in memory of his former home32 (Fig. 11).

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference, “Loyalism and the Revolutionary Atlantic World,” University of Maine at Orono, June 4-7, 2009.