Norfolk Burning

By February of 1776, the once bustling Borough of Norfolk lay in ruins. After being routed at Great Bridge in early December of 1775, Royal Governor Lord Dunmore and his troops retreated to their ships in the Elizabeth River across from Norfolk, while the Borough itself was occupied by Virginia and North Carolina troops. Tensions mounted between the two groups as British troops and those loyal to the crown began to run out of provisions and American troops refused them access to the shore to gather supplies. As a result, on January 1, 1776, Dunmore let loose cannon fire on the waterfront and sent raiding parties ashore, and the burning of Norfolk began. By January 4, two thirds of the Borough of Norfolk was in ashes, and by February the demolition of the town was complete.

But who exactly was the cause of all this destruction? The Governor, Council, and General Assembly were initially persuaded to believe that the British were the main culprits of the devastation at Norfolk. But in 1776 and 1777 several legislative petitions requesting relief were sent to the General Assembly, including one from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Councilmen of Norfolk Borough, asserting that the property in their town had been wantonly destroyed by Provincial troops. These petitions led the General Assembly to question their earlier beliefs, and in May of 1777 they passed an Act to inquire into and ascertain losses sustained by the late inhabitants of the borough of Norfolk. The appointed commissioners were tasked with determining the number of structures damaged and when they were destroyed, calculating the value of property destroyed, and establishing whether the property owners were friendly or enemies to the American cause.

The Auditor of Public Accounts, Commissioners to Examine Claims in Norfolk records, 1777-1836 (APA 235), document the investigation into the burning of Norfolk. These records include the final report of the commissioners, a schedule of property owners, depositions, and miscellaneous claim documents. While many of the residents of Norfolk had fled prior to the blaze, several inhabitants remained to witness the destruction and were called upon as witnesses as the inquiry began. Their depositions provide a first-hand account of the pillaging and contain evidence against the American troops and their involvement in the collapse of Norfolk.

William Ivey asserted that he was threatened with confinement in the guardhouse for giving his opinion on the burning of houses of those who were friendly to the American cause, while soldiers Robert Smyth and Joseph Bishop asserted that it was the general opinion of the soldiers that they were at liberty to plunder the inhabitants. The depositions also include information on property owners, their loyalties, and descriptions of some properties.

As the investigation wrapped up, it became apparent that the bulk of the fires had not been caused by British troops but by the Virginia and North Carolina troops stationed in Norfolk. It was proved that rather than trying to douse the initial flames caused by cannonballs and British troops setting fire to select buildings on the waterfront, the American soldiers instead took the opportunity to loot, plunder, and set torch to houses and businesses, including the local distillery. This may have started as an attempt to punish loyalists but soon became an indiscriminate free-for-all. The ransacking continued for three days before General Woodward put an end to it, but by then most of the town was gone. In an effort to deprive the British of any chance to regain their former stronghold along the coast, any remaining structures were destroyed by order of the Convention in February 1776. The final report details procedures followed during the examination and conclusions drawn at the end of the inquiry. In the end, the work of the commissioners established that 54 houses were destroyed by the British between November 1775 and January 1776, while a total of 1,219 structures were destroyed by troops of the state between January and February of 1776.

While these records were created to document losses and determine recompense for the citizens of Norfolk, they also contain personal information on residents that may not be found elsewhere in other collections. The schedule attached to the final report includes a listing of properties destroyed, along with the name of the property owner, owner occupation, property description, date destroyed and by whom, loyalty, and value of the destroyed property. These entries not only give details on profession and hint at the wealth of Norfolk inhabitants but also provide a glimpse of the town as a whole prior to its destruction. The associated claim files consist mainly of affidavits, depositions, and oaths, and often provide specifics on family relationships, marriages, deaths, and war activities. The claim of Matthew Rothery indicates that his son Daniel was taken to Great Britain in 1774 for his education and only returned to America in 1784, while an oath in the claim of Ralph Saunders mentions that he is married to Elizabeth, who is the sister of David Cooper.

An oath in the claim of Nathaniel Tatum, deceased, recounts the marriage of his widow, Elizabeth Tatum, to Matthias Precious in Elizabeth River Parish. In addition, these records may also include copies of wills, resolutions, detailed property valuations, and even a sentry pass that was at one time required to enter the Borough of Norfolk during the war.

Subsequent Acts passed by the General Assembly extended the scope of the investigation to Portsmouth and Suffolk. Those records are also included in this collection, as well as records specifically related to the burning of the distillery in Norfolk. While the commissioner records were initially produced to determine fault and assign monetary valuation to the havoc wrought on the town, it is a fortuitous bonus that they also provide evidence of personal lives. These details highlight the unintended research potential of this collection and suggest the research possibilities buried in other Auditor of Public Accounts collections.