The Loyalists of the American Revolution were once a group that was left adrift in the vast midst of Revolutionary scholarship. The historiographical architecture surrounding them concentrated on America's ultimate winners – the Revolutionaries – rather than arguably America's biggest losers – the Loyalists. It was not until the twentieth century that a cluster of historians documented the role of the Loyalists in a bloody war that caused sixty thousand to begin new lives across the British Atlantic.

Ruma Chopra is the latest to focus upon the supposed centre of Loyalist feeling in the colonies, directing her attentions towards New York as the centre of British military operations and the only city to be occupied for the duration of the conflict. Chopra's main objective is to examine Loyalists in New York City in order to account for their experiences and views of a rebellion that they considered to be a foreign conflict. Unnatural Rebellion emphasizes the staggering fact that Loyalists could not comprehend the Revolution's significance as the climax of a shocking array of events. According to their imagining, the organic build-up of revolutionary fervour was farcical as they believed up until the very end that conciliation with King George III and the British government was not only a possibility but a probability.

As one would expect, Chopra covers the key historical figures of New York's colonial life as her text is filled with references to the DeLanceys and the Livingstons as well as to Charles Inglis, William Smith Jr. and Cadwallader Colden, to name a few. In forceful ways, Colden is a particularly intriguing individual due to his dominant presence in US politics throughout almost the entire century. A prominent British official for almost two generations, he watched New York swiftly rise to political and economic prominence but died shortly before he had the opportunity to watch it fall. Unnatural Rebellion, however, does not restrict itself solely to an examination of the elite, as Chopra engages in fascinating ways with lesser-known figures. One such individual is Joshua Gidney, a Loyalist from Dutchess County, who became one of the thousands in a mass exodus to New York City (137). Thus Chopra strikes a good balance between the two strata by writing an intimate account of iconic as well as everyday individuals who were entangled in revolution.

Unnatural Rebellion's main contribution to existing scholarship emerges from Chopra's account of British military rule. When General Howe began the British occupation in September 1776, Loyalists across the colonies were buoyed with a hope that it would instigate a natural chain of events that would lead this “unnatural rebellion” to a peaceful reconciliation. This was not to be the case, however, as Chopra argues that the British Army and the manner in which they ruled played a significant role in alienating those who had not yet chosen a side. This had major consequences upon the British ability to wage war and instill a sense of Loyalism throughout the widely perceived home of counterrevolution.

A key question debated in this book concerns the following: why did this happen? Clearly, during the British Army's tenure of New York City, a series of social and political measures were implemented to limit the rights of its citizens. Civil jurisdiction and courts were suspended and civil offices fell under the control of British military government for the duration of the conflict. New Yorkers were not allowed the one thing they yearned for – to carry on with their lives. The British opinion of New Yorkers was plain. They could no longer be trusted to govern themselves and must be governed for their own benefit. The Mother Country was carrying out her matriarchal role at the expense of her Loyalists. This opens up a swarm of issues that remain tied to the failure of the British to galvanize Loyalist feeling throughout the colonies. The problems faced by loyal New Yorkers were almost parallel to those of the Revolutionaries: Loyalists saw themselves as loyal Britons and of equal standing to their allies, but the British, especially the Army, did not share this perception. Clearly, and as this book demonstrates, the British Army appraised Loyalist regiments as inferior in rank and ability as they continually looked down upon Loyalist citizens as second-rate. By 1780 Loyalists had finally “recognized their negligible role in British strategy” (187). Thus an attempt to launch a militant association – the Associated Loyalists led by Governor William Franklin – brought limited success and Loyalist participation was utterly spectatorial, leaving many bitter and feeling underappreciated.

Ultimately, the British never saw the colonists as equals and because of this many potential Loyalists were alienated and ostracized from British rule. As Chopra states, “British New York did not transform into Loyalist New York” (223). The continued application of military rule cost the British a significant amount of support, the extent of which can never be determined. In the final analysis, Unnatural Rebellion is a concise, well-written piece that should be widely read by a range of academics as it not only offers an illuminating account of a group that lost almost everything but provides a powerful reminder that they should not be forgotten.