USA > New York > Organization of the Revolutionary movement in New York State, 1775-77 > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
This is an authorized facsimile, made from the microfilm master copy of the original dissertation or master thesis published by UMI.
The bibliographic information for this thesis is contained in UMI's Dissertation Abstracts database, the only central source for accessing almost every doctoral dissertation accepted in North America since 1861.
UMI Dissertation Services
A Bell & Howell Company
300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346
1-800-521-0600 734-761-4700 http://www.umi.com
Printed in 1998 by xerographic process on acid-free paper
CF
198
11
Copyright by
Bernard Mason 1958
-
ORGANIZATION OF THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE, 1775-77
by
Bernard Mason
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science Columbia University 1958
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019
https://archive.org/details/organizationofre00maso
1
ABSTRACT
ORGANIZATION OF THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE, 1775-77
Bernard Mason
The British ministry at the opening of 1775 viewed the political situation in New York with equanimity, but subsequent events shattered its complacency. The inception of revolutionary government in the province came as a logical consequence of heightening opposition to the crown. Reduced to impotence, officialdom could do nothing but stand aside and watch the revolutionary organization assume the powers of government.
When the prospect of conciliation grew more improbable in the latter half of 1775. the Provincial Congress wavered uncertainly in its resistance to the crown. Notwithstanding this vacillation there was no general loyalist reaction. The most widespread support for the Tories came from Queens and Richmond Counties which had consistently favored the royal government. Led by Governor Tryon and William Smith, the administration sought to detach New York from the Continental Con- gress but these maneuvers failed. Indeed in the elections for the last royal assembly in early 1776 the Whigs won an overwhelming victory. Despite its halting steps the Provincial Congress carried the people farther down the road to revolution.
Closely linked with the question of a new government was the problem of independence. Numerous letters in the newspapers discussed both problems in detail and generally indicated that public opinion was
-
2
in advance of Congress in desiring the separation.
The hesitation of the Whig leaders of New York cannot be as- cribed to any single factor. Tradition and past ties with Britain exerted a braking influence. There was apprehension over the cost of independence in blood and treasure. There was uncertainty about in-
ternal political stability. There was fear of defeat and the penalties
for treason. Since the peculiar geographic position of New York made it probable that the colony might be invaded simultaneously from the south and north, the Whig moderates and conservatives felt no over- powering arge to place the noose around their own necks.
Acting upon a popular mandate, the Fourth Provincial Congress transformed itself in July, 1776. into a constitutional convention. Its constitutional labors stretched out over the next eight months largely because the conservatives delayed the Convention's labors. Since the conservatives feared radical reformism would sweep the Con- vention, they toiled arduously and successfully to prevent a radical victory. The radicals failed to win a bill of rights which bad seemed to be within their grasp in July, 1776.
Contrary to the generally accepted belief, Jay did not draw up the only draft of the constitution. There were at least four other committee drafts. On the whole these committee versions were more radical than the final product. They contained provisions for annual assembly elections, secret balloting, extension of the suffrage in assembly elections to all those paying either county or state taxes, senatorial and gubernatorial suffrage for the 140 freeholders, a
-
-
3
governor without veto power, a governor assisted by a council in nominating state officials. Most of these innovations did not sur- vive the onslaught from the Convention floor. The Convention presented the people with a revolutionary constitution, Albeit a conservative one.
111
PREFACE
In the following pages I have sought to trace the organization of the revolutionary movement in New York and describe its culmination in two major events, the Declaration of Independence and the drafting of the Constitution of 1777. These two occurrences represented the fruition of two interrelated trends which preoccupied many Whigs in the spring of 1776.
New York has held an ambivalent position in the history of the American Revolution. £ A revolutionary party did commit the colony to independence, but the presence of thousands of loyalists lent credence to the idea that the revolutionaries represented a minority. Moreover, the vacillations of the Whig political leaders in 1775-76 gave birth to doubts among their continental brethren of New York's loyalty to the patriot cause. However, the evidence compiled here will demonstrate, I think, the inaccuracy of the foregoing interpre- tation. Naturally, I owe much to Carl L. Becker's History of Politi- cal Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-76, a study which re- mains fundamental to the subject.
I would enter at least one caveat in relation to terminology in order to avoid confusing an easily confused subject. I have used the words radical, moderate and conservative in a special sense. In one contert the terms signify an individual's attitude toward the question of independence. £ If a man advocated uncompromising resistance to Britain and separation from her between January and July, 1776, I
1v
have characterized him as "radical. " On other questions the radi- cals might be conservative. Hugh Hughes and Isaac Sears would qualify as radicals under this definition. The moderates resisted on the one hand, but kept a sharp vigil for avenues of compromise. Nevertheless, they sponsored policies that steadily widened the gap between New York and Britain. On the question of independence, publicly they favored delay, tut privately conceded the necessity of the separation. In this middle of the road category I have placed John Jay and Robert R. Livingston. The conservatives opposed British measures, but also opposed vigorous resistance to those measures. They might have ac- cepted the Lord North conciliation proposals of 1775 or the Howe olive branch of 1776. The conservatives rejected independence as a solu- tion of the colonists' difficulties. James Duane and Isaac Roosevelt would fall into this category.
In chapter six I have employed the words radical and conserva- tive in a different context. Eere they denote attitudes toward the political content of the Constitution of 1777. The conservatives seek to preserve the political status quo ante 1775. In this situa- tion Jay and Livingston are conservatives. The radicals work to liberalize the prior system, urging a broader suffrage, for example. Matthew Adgate and Robert Harpur now bear the label radical.
Therefore, the terms "radical" and "conservative" do not refer to a man's political philosophy, but only to the limited areas indi- cated. The radical on independence could be a conservative on the question who should possess the right to vote or on the use of the written ballot.
Finally, although I have used the newspapers as indicators of trends in public opinion, I do not regard them as instruments of accu- rate measurement. Unfortunately, the historian lacks any means for measuring opinion in this period and consequently must depend upon the best available sources. In this case the newspapers have served that function.
I am deeply indebted to Professors Richard B. Morris and Harold C. Syrett of Columbia University for their critical reading of the manuscript and extremely helpful advice. Without their guidance this monograph would have more than the customary share of misconcep- tions and errors found in an author's entry into historical writing. I am happy to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of the staffs of the several institutions hereafter cited.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
Page 111
Chapter
I ROYAL INFLUENCE IN NEW YORK 1
II DIVISION INTO TORY AND WHIG 21
III CRYSTALLIZATION OF THE REVOLUTIONARY SPIRIT 60
IV THE TIDE SETS FOR INDEPENDENCE 96
CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION 0 1777 145
VI THE VIRTUES OF MAKING HASTE SLOWLY, OR, FRAMING
THE CONSTITUTION 184
VII CONCLUSION 219
APPENDIX
230
BIBLIOGRAPHY
235
.
vif
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CUL Columbia University Library
NYHS New-York Historical Society
NYPL New York Public Library
NYSL New York State Library
1
CHAPTER I
ROYAL INFLUENCE IN NEW YORK
The halting progress of revolutionary organization in the province of New York, 1774-76, was partly the consequence of royal authority. Although critics in neighboring colonies often harshly criticized the Yorkers, some critics permitted their ardor to over- ride their knowledge of the complex state of affairs in that colony, a state of affairs which compelled the revolutionaries to tread warily. The British government sought to block every move of the Whigs and its influence in the colony was widespread. The province had special significance for the British because of both political and military considerations. The continued attachment of New York to the crown would split the continental union and multiply the pit- falls in the path of those who persisted in opposition. Since 1763 the city had been the headquarters of His Majesty's Forces in North America, a strategic center from which to direct the assembling and transposition of troops. Moreover, in critical days to come, it would afford a secure base from which to launch an offensive to split the rebels, or from which large scale operations could be directed against the whole continental seacoast. 1
1. Edmund Burke to James Delancey, 14 March 1775, Ross J. S. Hoffman, Edmund Burke, New York Agent with His Letters to the New York Assembly and Intimate Correspondence with Charles O'Hara 1751-76, pp. 262-63; General Gage to Lord Dartmouth, 20 August 1775, Dartmouth to Gage,
-
2
One source of royal authority was the considerable administra- 1 tive machine which permeated the province. Some of these officials had imperial responsibilities, some had primarily local duties, while others combined both. At the head of the administration stood the governor whose power in varying degrees reached down through the coun- cil, assembly, courts, sheriffs, mayors, county and town officials. In another area functioned the customs, Indianand post office depart-
ments. Standing behind civil officialdom, more and more obtrusively by 1775, looned the armed forces under the control of the commander-
in-chief. Despite the imposing outlines of the machine, no one would contend that a strong and vocal opposition did not exist. Within the provincial government, however, only a minority would join the revolutionaries. The South Carolina General Committee illustrated the comprehension of these relationships when it wrote to the New York Committee:
We are not ignorant of that crowd of placemen, of contractors, of officere, and needy dependents upon the Crown, who are constantly employed to frustrate your measures. We know the dangerous tendency of being made the Headquarters of America for many years.
15 April, 2 August 1775, Clarence E. Carter, ed., The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State and with the War Office and the Treasury, 1763-75, 1, 413-14, 11, 194, 205 (hereafter cited as Gage Corr. ). See also the discussion of the importance of the command- or-in-chief by C. E. Carter, "The Office of the Commander in Chief, " in Richard B. Morris, ed., The Era of the American Revolution, pp. 170-213 (hereafter cited as Era).
1. See the civil list reported by Governor Tryon, Edmund B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History of the State of New York, I, 521-22 (hereafter cited as MYDH). Extensive as the list is, it omits such county and town officials as county judges, coroners, sheriffs, county clerks, justices of the peace, mayors.
2. Letter dated 1 March 1775, New York Journal, 6 April 1775 (hereafter
3
More particularly, a point of complaint arose over the adminis- tration's influence in the assembly which represented the freeholders and freemen. An anonymous New York correspondent of the Pennsylvania Journal, after listing the elected members of the legislature, their occupations, their social connections and in many cases their crown offices held during pleasure, asked:
First, Whether the great number of crown officers, or their near relations in the Assembly, is not a proof either of our extreme negligence of our Liberties, or of the vigilance of government for blessing our Members?
Second, Whether though the highest honour is due to the integrity of so many gentlemen, who have nobly risked their offices by their fidelity to the country, it is not never- theless a scandal to the province, that we have as yet no place bill to exclude such from the House of Assembly as after an election render themselves dependent upon the Crown for offices held during pleasure, and Third, Whether from the arbitrary project of the late Parliament for Introducing & council into the Massachusetts Bay, at the pleasure of the Crowa, it does not appear to be an indispencible duty firmly to insist upon a lay utterly to exclude the dangerous influ- ence of his Majesty's Council, at all elections for repre- Bentatives of the People. 1
The unappropriated lands of the colony gave to the British a potentially persuasive instrument, especially in a tense period, since the possession. of land seems to have been an almost universal aspiration
among both the lesser and greater properties classes. 2
Issuance of
cited as N.Y. J. ); Peter Force, ed., American Archives, 4th Ser., II, 1-2. In the pamphlet The Farmer Refuted Hamilton says, "How great an influ- ence, places, pensions and honours have upon the minds of men, we may easily discover by contrasting the former, with present conduct of some among ourselves" (p. 57).
1. Pennsylvania Journal, 22 February 1775 (hereafter cited as Pa. Jour. ). Perhaps some of the radical members of the New York City Committee of Sixty sent the letter to the Philadelphia Committee.
2. For British use of this device see below, pp. 6-7.
4
the letters patent depended upon approval of the governor and council who tended to favor the supporters of administration. Those who lacked the requisite political or social connections had to resort to other methods which could entail partial loss of the grant. "Rough dewer" referred to this practice when he wrote that one "could not ob- tain a patent, except through the interest of ... [the government] favorites, and that often at the expense of part, if not the half of 1 his right." In the case of the Vermont lands some men even managed to secure patents from the New Hampshire government. Henry Franklin, Frederick and William Rhinelander inserted an advertisement in the newspapers warning that they had obtained recently a New York grant of 63,000 acres in Charlotte County or the east side of Lake Champlain but that they would share it with those who beld these lands under a prior New Hampshire patent. The new patentees demanded the sharing of all costs and the procurement of a New York title. Among those named as holding from New Hampshire were Isaac Sears, Isaac Sears, Jr., William Smith, William Smith, Jr., Philip French, Philip French, Jr .. David Matthews, Cornelius Low, Jr., Benjamin Flagge, John Blagge, 2 Peter Ten Eyck, Andrew Ten Eyck.
Although the home government sought to revise the system, the governor and council insisted on perpetuating it by granting land to those who would uphold the royal prerogative. From April, 1775 to
1. "Rough Fever, " N.Y.J., 24 January 1784; Virginia D. Harrington, The New York Merchant on the Eve of the Revolution, pp. 140-141, 142.
2. New York Facket, 7 March 1776 (hereafter cited as N.Y.P. ).
5
K
July, 1776 Colden and Tryon approved grants totaling 423,064 acres, of which 328,216 acres lay in Vermont. More than 64 percent of the total, 273,121 acres, vent to prominent Tories: the Rhinelanders, Franklins, Apthorps, Edmund Fanning, the Fapaljes, Robert Rogers and 1
William Smith, agent for Governor Martin of North Carolina.
The merchants presented another possible channel for the dif- fusion of royal influence. Many Yorkers had strong commercial ties with the mother country; either they relied on British credit for their operations or they traded wholly within the empire. Still others
functioned as factors for English houses or sold goods on a commission basis for British correspondents. A small group profited as contrac-
tors for the British military and naval establishment. 2 In addition to these, the Indian traders, under the supervision of the government,
had long conducted a profitable business. Economic considerations,
however, by no means predominated in the web of bonds with Britain. A number of merchants had emigrated only recently to America or bad maintained close ties back home. Another group of merchants served on the council or held office on the local level in Albany and the capital. Finally, intermarriage between merchants and officiala drev
1. Calendar of New York Colonial Manuscripts Indorsed Land Papers in the Office of the Secretar; of State of New York, pp. 625ff; Harrington, op. cit., pp. 142-43; Irving Mark, Agrarian Conflicts in New York, 1711-75, p. 48, n. 137 and 138.
2. Barrack Master General Brigadier General James Robertson told some merchants he had spent £260,000 in New York. Presumably this covered the period as S.M.G., 1765-75. Willian H. W. Sabine, ed., Historical Memoirs, 1763-76 of William Smith, pp. 219-220; Gage Corr., II, 310.
6
1
a number of leading families into the circle of government supporters. When colonial affairs deteriorated critically in 1773-74, the British ministry turned to good account its position in New York. Employing a combination of persuasion and pressure, the ministry sought to mobilize enough strength to split New York away from the continental association. Certainly the landholding aristocracy and speculators, involved in major boundary disputes with New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, would have welcomed a Privy Council decision in their favor. Lord Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies, inti- mated the rewards awaiting the faithful when he discussed the state of the Vermont controversy with Lieutenant Governor Colden at the close of 1774:
Their [1.e., the Yorkers'] Pretensions will meet with every Countenance and Support that can be shewn consistent with Justice; for I can with Truth say that the Conduct of that Province in general ... has been such as justly intitles its well disposed and peaceable Inhabitants to His Majesty's particular Favor and Indulgence .-
Colden himself pressed the Secretary to conduct policy along these lines, expressing the hope that he "will encourage this good and singular disposition by such instances of indulgence and favor, as shall be wisely calculated to render most evident the good effects of 3 the conduct of this Province. "
1. Harrington, op. cit., pp. 350-51. See also the marriage relations of the council listed in Pa. Jour., 22 February 1775.
2. Dartmouth to Colden, 10 December 1774, Edmund R. O'Callaghan, ed .. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, VIII. 514 (hereafter cited as NYCD).
3. Colden to Dartmouth, 1 February 1775, ibid., VIII, 532. Those in high places in London assured the "Friends of Government" in New York
7
Tryon's instructions of May, 1775, containing several impor- tant proffers, bore out the continuance of these tactics. Dartmouth offered a blanket assurance to give "every reasonable satisfaction" to His Majesty's faithful subjects in New York. A second example of the royal Indulgence and favor manifested itself in conditional approval of the Totten and Crossfield Indian purchase. This tract comprised an extremely large area in the Adirondacks and involved many of the colony's leading personages. Royal confirmation of the transaction hinged upon New York's repudiation of the Continental Association. The Colonial Secretary had no objections to the draft of the new charter for Zings College and did not anticipate difficulties for it in the Privy Council. In addition the instructions held out the prospect of the Council's assent to charters of incorporation for the 1 Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian Churches.
The British did not neglect the power of the purse, although
of the royal esteem for that colony: "'Purgue the same path, and your province will be honoured with every mark of distinction from this country. His Majesty is already disposed to grant you every honourable favour that can be proposed. ' " Dr. Samuel Auchmuty to Captain Montresor, 19 April 1775, quoting from a letter to himself from London, Pa. Jour., 31 May 1775.
1. Major Philip Skene and Rev. John Vardill urged Dartmouth to grant the charters since it would lead the Presbyterians "to cooperate more zeal- ously in support of government. " Skene and Vardill to Dartmouth, March 1775, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, Appendix Part 10, p. 284 (hereafter cited as Hist. Mss. Com. ). Dartmouth to Tryon, 4 May 1775, NYCD, VIII, 573. See William Smith's comment, His- torical Memoirs of the Province of New York, Y, 28 June 1775. William Smith Papers, NTPL (hereafter cited as Memoirs).
6
no evidence of open bribery has come to light. Nonetheless, the Whigs circulated charges that Dartmouth had large sums to expend in America. Some "Citizens of New York" published a broadside in Novem- ber, 1774 warning the people that the ministry intended to buy up the 1
newspaper printers. Early in 1775 the press carried an extract of a letter from London which asserted that "it is currently said here and with much confidence, that a good deal of public Money, has been put in the Hands of a Mr. ---- one of the - ---- and some of your other great Men, in order to buy their Influence in Favour cf the Ministerial Measures. 2
By far the most sensational allegation of bribery came to hand in May, so sensational that the New York Committee of One Fundred tried to suppress it but the Pennsylvania Journal of May 17 reproduced an extract of a London letter which asserted that several members of the New York assembly had pocketed bribes of more than £1000 each for their votes in January, 1775. The letter writer went on to allege that a group of Delancey party leaders would be rewarded with places cf "honor, profit and pensions. "
The source of this information seems to have been a letter from London alderman William Lee to Samuel Adams, who, in turn, edited the letter for publication. Lee charged:
1. To the Public by "Citizens of New York," 16 November 1774, Broad- sides, NYPL.
2. N. Y.I., 9 February 1775. A similar warning appeared in ibid., 16 March 1775. This letter seems to have been from Thomas Lane, Chairman of the Lordon Merchants to Francis Lewis. See the comment of William Smith, Sabine, op. cit., P. 213.
9
the Ministry now openly boast of their having last year sent large sums to New York to bribe the Members of that Assembly and the names of Delancey, Phillips and Rappalje are frequently mentioned as having each of them received one thousand guineas for their conduct ir the Assembly respecting the late Continental Congress and for refusing to send Delegates to the May Congress.
Lee set forth a number of other grave imputations. For example, he alleged that Lieutenant-Governor Colden would resign with a pension, that councillor John Watts would succeed Colden, that Watts' son would take his father's place on the governor's council. Lastly, Lee de- clared that Skene would receive a land-grant of 120,000 acres and a commission as Governor of Crown Point and Ticonderoga. .
Later events substantiated some of the allegations. Skene did secure both the office and the land. Moreover, the Delancey party did move, as Lee indicated, to petition king and Parliament as a subter- 1 fuge to head off approval of the Continental Congress by the assembly. A passage in Smith's Memoirs tends to give a shadow, but no
more, of credibility to the bribery charges. Smith records a meeting of the key Delancey faction leaders on January 9 at which they dis-
1. There were two letters, 4 and 10 April 1775, Bancroft Transcripts: Samuel Adams Papers, NYPL. Lee apparently prepared the first one for publication, signing it "L. L. " The New York copy of the extract, which Adams probably sent to a number of committees, is printed in the Calendar of Historical Manuscripts Relating to the War of the Revolu- tion, in the Office of the Secretary of State, I, 1-2 (hereafter cited as Cal. Hist. Mas.).
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.