The Norfolk Riots (1768 -1769): A Case of (Dis)empowerment?

Why Every American Should Care

The port town of Norfolk, Virginia once served as a strong economic center and, later, a key supplier for the Continental Army.[1] Violence arrived at Norfolk seven years before America's revolution, however. The town weathered two distinct but related riots during 1768 and 1769. Popular belief dictates that these riots were provoked by select Norfolk Gentlemen who chose to inoculate their families in defiance of the public's will. A deeper reading reveals the existence of increasingly conflicting political and economic perspectives that emerged long before the first window was smashed.They highlight the desire for each party involved, from the doctors to the Gentlemen to the mob, to empower themselves. Ultimately, the justifications each party presented in their defense appears secondary to their goal of empowering their group while disempowering their opponent. This struggle inevitably ties the Norfolk Riots into America’s overarching history with its Founding Fathers and conflicts with the British Empire. 

A Map of the Most Inhabited Part of Virginia Containing the Whole Province of Maryland with Part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina.

The Riots: A Summary

In February of 1768, a vessel carrying smallpox from the West Indies docked in Norfolk.[2] This inspired the following Gentlemen to have their families inoculated against the disease: Cornelius Calvert, Archibald Campbell, James Archdeacon, James Parker, Lewis Hansford, and Neil Jamieson.[3] Known locally as “...a physician of merit, and remarkable for his experience and successes in inoculation,” Dr. Dalgleish was asked to perform the procedure.[4] This alarmed the public, for Dr. Dalgleish had failed to consult the townspeople when selecting a location for the inoculation.[5]

Plan of Princess Ann and Norfolk counties

A map of Norfolk and nearby landmarks in 1780.

Local custom maintained that inoculated persons were quarantined. They were housed in a public building known as the Pest House, which was roughly two and a half to three miles away from the town.[6] The Pest House existed under the supervision of Norfolk's mayor and alderman to prevent the spread of disease.[7] Ergo, one expected to gain the permission of these functionaries before inoculating anyone.[8] How official this procedure was is debatable, as Dr. Dalgleish would later claim he received no guidance from either man despite seeking them out.[9] What is clear is that Dalgleish did not intend to put his clients in the Pest House.

Some Norfolk residents correctly guessed that Dr. Dalgleish was going to inoculate his patients on private property near town.[10] This plan fell through after locals threatened the property owner into withdrawing his offer.[11] Rumors then circulated that Dr. Dalgleish was going to build a house on his own land for the purpose of inoculation.[12] By the time Dr. Dalgleish selected Dr. Archibald Campbell’s plantation, two and a half[13] miles from town, many locals were suspicious and agitated. These feelings were vindicated and fueled by the vocal disapproval of other Norfolk Gentlemen and their doctors: Samuel Boush, Joseph Calvert, Maximilian Calvert, George Abyvon, Dr. John Ramsey, and Dr. James Taylor.[14]

Poor farmers and unnerved townsfolk petitioned local magistrates to protect the public’s health by stopping Dr. Dalgleish’s procedure.[15] Though the magistrates were sympathetic, they could do nothing. Inoculation was not illegal.[16] Seemingly on their own, the crowd of locals then made their way to Dr. Campbell’s plantation. They chose to confront him and the pro-inoculation Gentlemen.

Tensions rose as Dr. Campbell, armed with friends, weapons, and slaves, strove to convince the crowd that the inoculation procedure would not endanger their lives.[17] Steps would be taken to keep the sick isolated in the house. He then pledged that this would be the first and only inoculation of Gentlemen on his property. This commitment was meant to soothe the people who feared Dr. Campbell would turn his home into his own version of a Pest House.

Some prominent figures, such as Paul Loyal, came forward to broker a temporary truce between the mob and Dr. Campbell's group. The inoculation was postponed, and a meeting was arranged. Anti-inoculation leaders Samuel Boush, Joseph Calvert, Maximilian Calvert, George Abyvon, Dr. John Ramsey, and Dr. James Taylor joined pro-inoculators Cornelius Calvert, Archibald Campbell, James Archdeacon, James Parker, Lewis Hansford, and Neil Jamieson at a Mrs. Ross’ tavern. There, both groups attempted to find a compromise. It was agreed that the inoculation would take place, but not at Dr. Campbell’s plantation.[18] Conflicting accounts make it unclear if the parties decided Dr. Campbell’s plantation would not be used, period, or if it was a last resort in the event that no better alternative was found. In any case, the public continued to voice its disapproval.

Paul Loyal's Defense

Paul Loya's public defense against accusations that he acted dishonorably during the initial Norfolk riot. 

On June 23, 1768, an unnamed group destroyed some of Dr. Campbell’s doors and windows.[19] Cornelius Calvert became Norfolk’s mayor the very next day.[20] This no doubt emboldened his pro-inoculation acquaintances, as he publicly declared his intention to inoculate his family. He then warned townsfolk to keep a safe distance from Dr. Campbell’s plantation to avoid infection.[21] On June 25th, the pro-inoculators went through with their plans and inoculated their families under the supervision of Dr. Dalgleish.[22]

Norfolk residents were dismayed, and demands were made for the inoculated to be moved to the Pest House. Cornelius Calvert and Dr. Campbell agreed to this demand on the condition that the Pest House be made more “tolerable” for the gentile families.[23] Folks would therefore have to wait a few days as the Pest House was cleaned and repainted. Despite this agreement, a local official named Joseph Calvert rallied an armed mob with a drum and flag on June 27th.[24] He led an upwards of two hundred people[25] to Dr. Campbell’s plantation and, after Paul Loyal had convinced the plantation residents to lay down their weapons, drove the inoculated outside.[26]

There is much debate over the behavior of Paul Loyal and Joseph Calvert during this first riot. Paul Loyal would later insist his attempts to mediate a peace between pro-inoculators and the mob were genuine. The fact that the families were dragged out of their homes and mistreated by that mob was not his intention.[27] Yet other sources imply Paul Loyal tricked the pro-inoculators into disarming for the sake of discussion only to have Joseph Calvert round them up.[28] In a similar vein, some accused Joseph Calvert of terrorizing the inoculated women and children with his pistol and sword[29] while others insisted he simply forced them off the plantation.[30]

What is certain is that an armed mob forced inoculated families, from infants to pregnant women, to travel five miles to Norfolk’s Pest House.[31] In the dark. During a rainstorm. The accommodations given to these people, if there were any, is another point of debate. Regardless, the families arrived at the Pest House an estimated four to five hours after leaving the plantation.[32] 

Inquiry into Dr. Campbell's Burned Down Home

A government inquiry into Dr. Campbell's burned down house. 

The actions of the mob and its anti-inoculation leaders did not go unanswered. Various lawsuits and criminal charges were brought against people with Thomas Jefferson serving as the lawyer for many of the pro-inoculators.[33] Meanwhile several anti-inoculators, such as Maximillian Calvert, tried to bring charges against those pro-inoculators. The accusation was that pro-inoculators, namely Dr. Dalgleish, acted as a public nuisance and conspired to endanger the public[34] to benefit the doctors.[35] These numerous court cases took several years to process, and were further complicated by the events of the second riot.

Dr. Campbell’s home was burned down almost two months after the initial riot in 1768.[36] Life settled somewhat until 1769 when yet another smallpox-riddled vessel docked in Norfolk. This ship belonged to Cornelius Calvert, who had sick passengers quarantined at the Pest House.[37] He then called for Dr. Dalgleish to inoculate three of his slaves from the same vessel. An alderman took this opportunity to jail Dr. Dalgleish, and a mob accosted Calvert’s home.[38] This mob smashed Calvert’s windows and demanded he drop the suits against them.[39] He refused. Dr. Campbell and the merchant James Parker received similar threats with Dr. Campbell ultimately folding.[40]

The General Court eventually ruled in favor of the mob.[41] This was not surprising. The accused had the sympathy of the local magistrates; they portrayed themselves as public defenders who stood up to an injustice. In an era where the colonies were resentful of the taxes levied against them, this resonated with many. Legal restrictions were then placed on inoculation in Virginia.[42] The pro-inoculators, meanwhile, were not found guilty of conspiring to endanger the public.[43] They were prosecuted for being public nuisances, and had to contend with the associated fines. James Parker did everything in his power to have his case appealed in an English court, but the Revolutionary War inevitably put an end to that.

To better understand the Norfolk Riots, one must frame it in the context of the Revolutionary War. Ideas that supported or challenged America's call for independence were present in each group. The Gentlemen, the mob, the press, and even inoculation itself were all impacted by facets of social, political, and economic unrest. This unrest, this conflict on a local and colonial scale, inspired different groups to seize what autonomy they could while disempowering their adversaries.

Academic Legacy

Alone, the Norfolk Anti-inoculation Riots of 1768 and 1769 have inspired little historical analysis. One would think any instability and conflict in an economic center like Norfolk would reverberate throughout Virginia, if not all of the colonies. It is perhaps understandable, then, that the historians who do tackle the Norfolk Riots frame it within a much larger context. Scholarship uses the Norfolk Riots as a case study to explore the mounting issues between the Patriots and Loyalists, locals and foreigners, debtors and creditors, and inoculation policies before and during the Revolutionary War. 

The Norfolk Riots are often treated as the breaking point between political and economic factions within the town. Historians acknowledge that, officially, the riots were fueled by safety concerns over Dalgleish’s inoculation attempt. These concerns are never the focal point, however. The rioters are instead overlooked or outright dismissed in favor of analyzing the political motives of pro- and anti-inoculation leaders. 

Some scholars assert that conflicts between wealthy Patriots and Loyalists were the true underlying cause of the Norfolk Riots.[44] Pro-inoculation Gentlemen tended to be Loyalists while anti-inoculators were Patriots. By luring a concerned mob to their side, the Patriots were able to intimidate and attack their Loyalist counterparts. 

The fear that Dr. Dalgleish’s inoculation would lead to widespread infection is often dismissed as unfounded or foolish by historians. Readers are encouraged to see the mobs as uneducated and easily manipulated. They answer to the whims of a few key players in a political game they are not true participants of. Only Kristan Crawford seems to defy this characterization in her dissertation, “‘Exciting the Rabble to Riots and Mobbing’: Community, Public Rituals, and Popular Disturbances in Eighteenth-Century Virginia.” There, Crawford explores the historical context which fostered such a visceral fear of smallpox in Norfolk’s residents.[45] She makes sense of their aggression even as she argues that other, perhaps more impactful, factors contributed to the Norfolk Riots. 

Crawford and like-minded scholars build off of the notion that the Norfolk Riots were a Patriot-Loyalist dispute brought to a head. As many Loyalists were immigrants from Scotland or Britain, they inevitably clashed with the American-born colonist.[46] These foreign-born, pro-inoculation, Loyalist Gentlemen also tended to be merchants who lent out money to locals.[47] Many historians treat these factors as political and economic motivations, born from the tensions that led to the Revolutionary War, as the true cause of the Norfolk Riots. The mob is a tool used by Patriots, native-born, and indebted colonists to attack the pro-inoculators whose lifestyle and views run contrary to theirs. 

Footnotes

[1] Thomas Costa, Economic Development and Political Authority: Norfolk, Virginia Merchant-Magistrates, 1736-1800 (Dissertations, Theses, and Master Projects, 1991), 8.

[2] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[3] Frank Dewey, "Thomas Jefferson's Law Practice: The Norfolk Anti-Inoculation Riots." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 91, no. 1 (1983): 39-53

[4] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[5] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[6] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[7] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[8] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[9] John Dalgleish, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Oct. 20, 1768.

[10] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[11] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[12] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[13] Cornelius Calvert, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Jan. 09, 1772.

[14] Patrick Henderson, "Smallpox and Patriotism: The Norfolk Riots, 1768-1769." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 73, no. 4 (1965): 414.  

[15] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[16] Henderson, "Smallpox and Patriotism,” 417. 

[17] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[18] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[19] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[20] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[21] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[22] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[23] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[24] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[25] Paul Loyal, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 1, 1768.

[26] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[27] Paul Loyal, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 1, 1768.

[28] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[29] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[30] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[31] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[32] The Virginia Gazette Supplement (Rind, VA), Aug. 25, 1768.

[33] Dewey, "Thomas Jefferson's Law Practice,” 42. 

[34] Dewey, "Thomas Jefferson's Law Practice,” 49.

[35] The Virginia Gazette Postscript (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Sept. 8, 1768.

[36] The Virginia Gazette (Rind), September 22, 1768. 

[37] Cornelius Calvert, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Jan. 09, 1772.

[38] Cornelius Calvert, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Jan. 09, 1772.

[39] Cornelius Calvert, The Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon, VA), Jan. 09, 1772.

[40] Patrick Henderson, "Smallpox and Patriotism: The Norfolk Riots, 1768-1769." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 73, no. 4 (1965): 418. 

[41] Dewey, "Thomas Jefferson's Law Practice,” 48-50.

[42] Dewey, "Thomas Jefferson's Law Practice,” 52.

[43] Dewey, "Thomas Jefferson's Law Practice,” 49.

[44] Henderson, "Smallpox and Patriotism: The Norfolk Riots, 1768-1769," 414. 

[45] Kristan Crawford, ‘Exciting the Rabble to Riots and Mobbing’: Community, Public Rituals, and Popular Disturbances in Eighteenth-Century Virginia’ (Dissertation, Masters Theses, 2015), 63-64. 

[46] Costa, Economic Development and Political Authority, 1736-1800, 160. 

[47] Costa, Economic Development and Political Authority, 160.