The Natchez Revolt in the Mississippi Territory in 1781-The Last Year of the Revolutionary War

INTRODUCTION: The Mississippi Territory was under Spanish control at the time and not part of the 13 colonies. However, the Spanish joined in on the side of the colonist in 1779. Interestingly two years later a pro-American faction joined with British loyalist against the Spanish government in the Natchez District of the Mississippi Territory. The territory was controlled by Fort Rosalie that was first built by the French in 1716. Mississippi would not become a state for over 100 years, it was only 17 years away from becoming a US territory. This fort was first destroyed in a conflict with the Natchez Indians and it was rebuilt in the early 1730s and again about 1778 when it was occupied by the British. The following is a look at the Natchez Revolt of 1781 as it took place right before the final battle of the American Revolutionary War at Yorktown. For me, this revolt also created a genealogical record of my 4th great grandfather showing that he and maybe his future wife had a front-row seat of this event. At the time there were only a few hundred settlers in the Natchez District of the Mississippi Territory. The primary reference for this post is “The Natchez District and the American Revolution” by Robert V. Haynes.  This blog is my 2nd most popular was updated on 8-27-2019 and again on 11-22-2019.

THE HISTORY: On May 8, 1779, the American War of Independence (1775-1783) was given a boost when a formal declaration of war against Britain was made by King Charles III of Spain. Another declaration was made on July 8. This “authorized Spanish colonial leaders to engage in aggressive action against the British forces. Directly following this decree, Governor of Spanish Louisiana, Bernardo de Gálvez, began planning offensive actions against the British.” On September 12 they began a siege against the new British fort at Baton Rouge. The battle ended with a Spanish victory on September 21, 1779.  The conditions of British Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Dickson’s surrender included surrounding the infantry soldiers at the Fort Panmure, at Natchez, Mississippi. Fort Panmure was originally named Fort Rosalie by the French, but it was renamed when the British took control in 1763.

The Spanish occupation of Fort Panmure and the Natchez District of the Mississippi Territory was briefly interrupted by the British inspired Revolt of 1781. General Campbell at the British fort at Pensacola played a significant role in this revolt but locally there were two instigators named Philip Alston and John Turner. With a joint effort, they convinced John Blommart, a reluctant loyalist, to join in and lead the revolt. The insurgents were advised that British troops and supplies would be sent to support them and that they should recapture Fort Panmure.

With this promise of support, the British loyalist attacked Fort Panmure on April 22, 1781, with 200 men and only one cannon in their arsenal. This attack failed. However, they managed to trick the Spanish to abandon the Fort. They did this by intersecting message from a “Spanish sympathizer.” They replaced him with an imposter complete with forged papers and replaced the message so that it now read that the fort would be destroyed by an explosion of gunpowder unless the Spanish withdrew.” The rebels took control of the fort and the Natchez District on May 4, 1781. However, there was immediate descent among the victors. There was a pro-American faction that wanted to handle things differently from Captain Blommart. At stake was what to do with the Spanish prisoners and the supplies and ammunition from the fort. However, the victors soon realized that there would be no British support because Pensacola fell to the Spanish a week later on May 10. The pro-American faction wanted to divide the spoils equally and flee to the countryside and hold out until reinforcements arrived from the United States. Blommart disagreed and appointed a commissary to dispense the supplies only as needed.

Natchez was re-occupied by a combined force of French, Indian, and Spanish troops on June 22, 1781, only 2 months after the revolt started. “This Spanish force was under the command of Captain Esteban Roberto de la Morandiere and consisted of sixty-six militiamen, forty-three native warriors, and forty French-Canadians.” This force landed at Natchez unopposed and began to reoccupy Fort Panmure, the town of Natchez, and the Natchez District. The next day a detachment of 20 militia and some 80 inhabitants began rounding up all the known rebels still in the district. However, most of the rebels had fled the area and were planning to take refuge with the Indians. The largest colony of these refugees wound up around Chickasaw Bluffs (now Memphis). A month later Colonel Don Carlos de Grande Prè became the commandant of Fort Panmure. He took measures to punish the insurgents and imprisoned seven and charged them with promoting a general rebellion against the government.

The Natchez Court Records adds a tidbit of information about this rebellion not mentioned in other historical accounts I found. This record states that “the revolt took place at Natchez and the widow Truly having built a fort or block-house on her land or the land of Benet Truly and the rebels who took refuge there, fearing they should want water if attacked by the power against them, dug a well.” We would not know this fact, except that, prior to this rebellion Benet Truly had engaged a Thomas Rule to dig a well on this same property. So a year later on April 11, 1782, the court demanded that ”Thomas Rule shall dig the well which he contracted for on the plantation of Benet Truly. The said Rule having been paid for it and the well shall be dug in the season customary in this district. Sig: Grand-Pre.”

Before I continue I have to add that this Thomas Rule is my 4th great grandfather. I knew almost nothing about him until I found court and land records from the Natchez District. I will return to his story but let’s get back to the rebellion. With a bit of speculation, we can mesh the story of the well at the plantation of Benet Truly with the bigger story outlined above. This is what probably happened: When the insurgents at Fort Panmure got word that they were not going to be helped by the British they realized that they had no chance against the approaching Spanish force. Some disbanded and others remained at Fort Panmure. Only a small contingent of the insurgents remained in the Natchez District and they decided to hold up at the Benet Truly plantation where they dug a well. This group fits within the non-local pro-American faction without ties to the Natchez District. In the American colonies, a bigger engagement with the British was about to happen that would result in the end of the Revolutionary War.
 
On September 28th of the same year - George Washington commanding a force of 17,000 French and Continental troops, began the siege known as the Battle of Yorktown. This battle against General Lord Cornwallis was the most important battle of the Revolutionary War because “after three weeks of bombardment... Cornwallis surrendered on October 15, 1781, effectively ending the War for Independence. Prior to this battle, George Washington cut off the escape of Cornwallis by land and sea with brilliant coordinated effort using the French fleet from the West Indies lead by Comte de Grasse.

We see from the shortlived Natchez Revolt that the Natchez District was politically a world apart from colonial America at the end of the Revolutionary War. It appears that the time that a significant portion of the population must have been British Loyalist that opposed the Spanish government. This is an interesting change from a settlement that was first started by the French. This concludes my historical account of the Natchez Revolt of 1781 and the close of the Revolutionary War.

THE MYSTERY OF THOMAS RULE SR AND HIS WIFE ELIZABETH: I am hoping this historical background will help to solve the mystery of my 4th great grandfather Thomas Rule. Who was he? Who did he marry and where did he come from? This is what I know. Thomas was in the Santa Catalina area of the Spanish Natchez District Census of 1792 and from the court records mentioned above he had to have been in the Natchez District as early as 1781. He was eventually married to someone named Elizabeth and they bought property in the District. He died sometime early in 1804 in the Natchez District. They apparently had two sons, Thomas Rule (1786-1850) and Nathan Rule (1792-1869), but there is no record found so far that connects this family together. The younger Thomas married Anna Christeana Jacoby (James) (1786-1853). They are both buried in the Rule Cemetery in Ebenezer Mississippi and they are my 3rd great grandparents. From a memoir written by Christeana’s younger brother (Peter), we know that she and her family arrived at Natchez on June 1, 1800, with her parents, 2 sisters, and Peter. Her parents were Bartholomew Jacoby (1747-1833) and Maria Catherine Mayer (1749-1820). They had traveled from Pine Grove in Berks Pennsylvania. The wife of Thomas Rule through DNA only seems to have been Elizabeth Holloway (1765-1812?) who came to the Natchez District with her parents and her brother Robert. Her youngest brother, James, was born in the Natchez District in 1779. Her father, John, was killed by Indians in Natchez 24 Oct 1781 when James was only 2 years old. To date the only connection I have found between Elizabeth Holloway and Thomas Rule other than DNA comes from the following court record:

P. 69  (about Feb 1783) Elizabeth Holloway vs Thos. Rule. She represents that Thomas Rule owes her $4 and 4 rials for carpenter's tools lent to him, namely one hand-saw and one chisel; asks for payment.

Thomas’s first son would be born about 3 years after this record, so this Elizabeth is hard to understand as the future wife of Thomas senior because she was married to a Cady Raby in 1781. There was another Thomas Rule (1761-1846) from Pennsylvania that lived about the same time as the younger Thomas in this story. This other Thomas died in Mercer County Kentucky and never lived in Mississippi. Just the same, he has been confused with both Thomas Rules (from Mississippi) in this post. He was having children in Kentucky up to 1811 and was buried in Kentucky so he does not fit in with records of these two Mississippi Thomas Rules.