USA > New York > A short history of New York State > Part 10
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 (link on the Part 1 page).
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 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75
There were four categories of labor: free labor, apprenticeship, in- dentured servitude, and slavery. In general, the trend was toward free
87
TRADERS AND ARTISANS
labor. Apprenticeship, indentured servitude, and slavery gradually lost ground because New Yorkers found free labor more efficient, reliable, and flexible.
Free labor included most of those who were skilled in some trade or handicraft. These artisans usually worked by themselves for outsiders. Unlike their European counterparts, they had to observe few regulations since there were no guilds to fix hours and wages, to set standards, or to prescribe the training for apprentices. In the countryside handicrafts- men were less common. Some, however, set up their shops at the cross- roads, and others traveled from farm to farm. The farmers themselves tried to do most of their own work, but from time to time they had to hire cobblers and tailors, and they patronized blacksmiths and saw- mill and gristmill operators.
An apprenticeship required a boy or girl to serve a master or mistress for a term of years (usually seven). The master was required to teach the apprentice a trade and to provide food and shelter. He assumed the role of parent, but his power to punish was limited by law. The system of apprenticeship retained some popularity in the countryside, but it gradually declined in New York City, where the influx of trained crafts- men made it unnecessary to train apprentices.
Indentured servants were less numerous and less important in New York than in Pennsylvania and the Southern colonies. An indentured servant was usually a destitute person who agreed to work for a term of years in exchange for passage to America. Sometimes the British government "transported" minor criminals to America as indentured servants, but few of this type came to New York. Employers preferred slaves to indentured servants, who often ran away and proved recal- citrant. Those needing temporary workers preferred to hire free laborers or the slaves of neighbors.
Negro slaves performed most unskilled and menial tasks. Many sub- stantial farmers had one or two slaves, and the aristocracy used Negroes as household servants. Owners preferred docile and "broken" slaves from the West Indies to the "wild" slaves from Africa. As the number of Negroes increased, a slave code evolved which defined the limits of slavery as a labor system. Other parts of the code dealt with the Negroes as a potentially dangerous racial minority. The laws protected the owner's property and gave him the power to punish unruly slaves. Slavery, however, was losing ground during the last half of the eighteenth century. People found it generally cheaper to hire free laborers than to maintain slaves during periods of idleness as well as usefulness.
The traders and workers of colonial New York, though few in number, were influential in establishing the foundations of the commercial and manufacturing supremacy of the Empire State. The merchants were
88
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
particularly important in creating a seaport of international significance and in providing much of the leadership for the home-rule movement. The contributions of artisans were less impressive, but who will deny their achievement in demonstrating the greater efficiency and dignity of free labor over bound and slave labor? Not until the next century were the merchants and craftsmen ready to supply the capital, leader- ship, skill, and brawn which created the industrial might of New York.
Chapter 9
Severing the Ties of Empire, 1763-1776
Pro Patria
The first Man that either distributes or makes use of Stampt Pa- per, let him take Care of his House, Person, & Effects.
Vox Populi;
We dare.
-Warning posted by antistamp faction, 1765
IF A seer had prophesied in 1763 that in less than a decade and a half New York would declare its independence, establish a state government, and fight a decisive war with Great Britain, he would have been laughed out of the colony. For almost a century the Union Jack had waved over this outpost of empire. New Yorkers were proud to call themselves British subjects; they were proud of their rights as Englishmen; they were proud of the Empire; it was theirs; and they had fought, bled, and died to extend its authority over vast areas of the New World.
Imperial patriotism was strong among all classes, but nowhere was it stronger than among the wealthy landlords and merchants who later were to furnish the leadership in the struggle for independence. These men saw themselves in the role of English gentlemen and identified them- selves with their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic. Indeed, a large portion of the inhabitants of the state could trace their ancestry to the British Isles. Binding the merchants still more closely to England was the fact that the governmental agencies for administering British North America were concentrated in New York, a circumstance which inflated the colonists' pride and fattened their money belts.
Profit was an important factor in imperial relations. The Empire offered excellent trading opportunities, and the British fleet gave pro- tection to colonial shipping on the high seas. Security was an important
89
90
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
matter to New Yorkers in the years prior to the 1760's because in those days the Dutch, Spanish, and especially the French were rivals of the British in the establishment of empire. By 1763 the fear of conquest was greatly reduced, however, because New York and her sister colonies had grown strong enough to discourage sea-borne invasion and because the French had been driven from Canada.
The conquest of New France by England and the colonies held great promise for New York. The French had been very active in the Indian trade, and it was anticipated that a large share of this business would be captured by New Yorkers. New Yorkers hoped that since the French had encouraged the Indians to resist white settlement on Indian lands, the elimination of French support would weaken Indian power and allow the frontier to expand westward with greater rapidity.
These hopes soon were dashed. The imperial government, presumably believing that the independent action of the American colonies could never result in a consistent Indian policy, issued the Proclamation of 1763. This fiat provided for strict control of the Indian trade and prohibited the acquisition of Indian lands west of the Allegheny watershed. Several groups were immediately affected by the edict: Indian traders, merchants who supplied them, and frontier settlers. More important in the light of future events was the anger of speculators who had hoped to reap profits from the sale of Indian lands. These wealthy men more often than not were members of the colonial aristocracy, and they were a politically powerful group. Although no serious disturbances grew out of the Proclamation of 1763 and although the Treaty of Fort Stanwix negotiated with the Iroquois five years later extended the area open to settlement, the imperial restrictions on Indian trade and frontier settlement helped to change the temper of the people.
In 1764 the celebrated case of Forsey v. Cunningham further quickened public feeling. In the summer of the preceding year Waddel Cunning- ham had assaulted Thomas Forsey on the streets of New York City with a sword hidden under a cloak. In the civil suit which followed, a jury awarded Forsey &1,500. Cunningham appealed this verdict to the governor and Council. When Acting Governor Cadwallader Colden agreed to review the case, Chief Justice Daniel Horsmanden declared that English common law made a jury verdict sacred and that an appeal could not be made. Horsmanden received the support of a great majority of the members of the legal profession, including John Morin Scott and William Livingston, two of the most important lawyers in the province, who were destined to play leading roles in the struggle for inde- pendence. The provincial Council ruled against Colden and refused to review the case, a position upheld by the British government. The As-
91
SEVERING THE TIES OF EMPIRE
sembly reacted to the Forsey case by passing a resolution reaffirming the right of trial by jury and by reprimanding the governor. The As- sembly by this time had grown from what amounted to an advisory council to a strong lawmaking body which claimed powers similar to those of the British House of Commons, and in it was lodged much of the opposition to imperial control.
Most of the difficulties between the colony and the mother country had a theoretical basis in their conflicting hypotheses concerning the authority to tax. The colonists held that the British Parliament had no right to levy taxes on Americans except for the purpose of controlling imperial trade. Parliament, on the other hand, claimed the power to tax the colonists for any purpose and after 1763 enacted a group of laws which were frankly designed to raise revenue rather than to control trade. Colonial reaction grew increasingly violent.
In 1764 Parliament passed the Sugar Act to replace the Molasses Act of 1733. The new law reduced the duty on foreign molasses from six- pence to threepence per gallon, prohibited the importation of all rum except that of British distillation, which was admitted without charge, and placed new taxes on other products from the foreign West Indies. On the surface the Sugar Act was more liberal than the Molasses Act, , but the British government had never effectively enforced the provisions of the latter. The determined effort to enforce the Sugar Act by giving customs officials more authority and by enlarging the powers of the ad- miralty courts alarmed the merchants, who feared the new law would hamper the domestic production of rum and seriously curtail trade with West Indian islands which were under French or Spanish rule. These worries were aggravated by the fact that the colony was suffering a de- pression following the properous times of the French and Indian War.
Reaction to the Sugar Act was rapid. Even before April 6, 1764, when news reached the colony that the act had become a law, New York mer- chants sent a protest to the Board of Trade. In October the provincial Assembly sent memorials to the King, Lords, and Commons denying the right of Parliament to tax New Yorkers without their consent. Prominent citizens not only suggested that the colony should refuse to import British goods but organized societies to stimulate local manufacturing and thus reduce colonial dependence on Great Britain. Relations were further strained when Lord Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer, estimated that it cost about £360,000 per year to maintain troops in America for defense and suggested that the colonies ought to bear one-third of the expense. He calculated that the Sugar Act would net about £45,000, and the American legislatures were invited to suggest a plan which would provide an additional £75,000 to make up the quota. When the colonists
92
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
took no action, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which was to become effective November 1, 1765. News that the law had passed reached New York on April 11 and set off a steadily increasing roar of protest.
Businessmen, who were still suffering from the economic depression, became excited at the prospect of new imposts. The law required that tax stamps should be placed on news journals, legal documents, and official papers, thus directly affecting lawyers and printers, the two most vocal groups in the province. Since there could be no question that the purpose of the Stamp Act was not to control trade but solely to obtain revenue, the colonists had excellent technical grounds for resistance on the basis that Parliament had no authority to pass the law. So bitter was the reac- tion that for the first time there appeared some sentiment for inde- pendence. The following quotation taken from an article published June 6, 1765, in The New-York Gazette; or, The Weekly Post-Boy illustrates the point. It is believed to have been written by John Morin Scott.
If then the Interest of the Mother Country and her Colonies cannot be made to coincide (which I verily believe they may) if the same Constitution may not take Place in both, (as it certainly ought to do) if the Welfare of the Mother Country, necessarily requires a Sacrifice of the most valuable natural Rights of the Colonies Their Right of making their own Laws and Disposing of their own Property by the Representatives of their own choosing ;- if such really is the Case between Great-Britain and her Colonies, then the Con- nection between them ought to cease.
Between the time New Yorkers learned that the law had been enacted and the date it took effect, they had over six months in which to organize resistance. So well did they organize that the Stamp Act was never en- forced within the colony. On July 1 it was learned that James McEvers, a merchant, had been appointed stamp collector for New York City. McEvers resigned his commission on August 30 because he feared bodily harm at the hands of the opponents of the law. In response to a circular letter dispatched by the General Court of Massachusetts, nine colonies sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress, which sat in New York City October 7 to 25. This assembly denounced the Stamp Act in ringing words, to the delight of the local citizens.
During the hectic month of October 1765, the Sons of Liberty, an ultra- radical organization which advocated the use of force to resist Parliament, made its initial appearance in New York. The active leaders of this organ- ization apparently were John Lamb, Isaac Sears, and Joseph Allicocke, who, unquestionably, were aided and abetted by other men of wealth. The rank and file was made up largely of laborers, artisans, and small shopkeepers. With the advent of the Liberty Boys there appeared a hint of violence to enforce the suggestions and proclamations of radical
93
SEVERING THE TIES OF EMPIRE
leaders. On October 23 the first cargo of stamps arrived. Rioting threat- ened both ship and cargo until the stamps were removed to a warship, from whence they were later taken to a British fortress. On the twenty- eighth the leading merchants, under the goading of the Sons of Liberty, signed an agreement to buy no more European goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. Meanwhile extremists were urging people to carry on their business without the use of stamps.
The events of November 1, the day the law was to become effective, indicated that the antistamp faction had done its work well. The drawn shutters of shops, the flags flying at half-mast, and the tolling church bells registered public mourning at the death of American liberties. Some newspapers carried the gruesome emblem of a skull in the place where the stamp was supposed to be affixed. But New Yorkers did more than lament. They issued fiery pamphlets denouncing the tax, and in the evening they congregated by the thousands before Fort George, in which Acting Governor Colden had stored the stamps. Angry crowds stoned British troops, hung Colden in effigy, and, at Bowling Green, seized and burned his coach.
By November 5 the acting governor realized the gravity of the situation and delivered the stamps to the mayor of New York City with a promise that he would make no effort to enforce the law. Sir Henry Moore, who arrived later in the month to replace Colden, quickly reached the same conclusion. On March 20, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed, largely because American boycotts injured the business of British merchants. At the same time the threepence duty on foreign molasses was removed and a one-penny tax was placed on all molasses, British and foreign.
New Yorkers celebrated this victory with enthusiasm, even though it had not been achieved without cost. The boycott had curtailed business, which in turn had caused the price of agricultural products to tumble. Governor Moore and Sir William Johnson reported that unrest over the Stamp Act did not seriously affect rural areas until early in 1766. Actually the agricultural areas were not so concerned about the stamp tax as they were with the oppressive leasehold system. Falling farm prices prodded them to rebel, while the riotous activities of the lower classes of city dwellers inspired hope for urban support.
As we have seen, tenant unrest was by no means uncommon during the first half of the eighteenth century. In the 1760's the struggle broke out anew in Philipse Highland Patent, an estate of some 200,000 acres in Dutchess County. The Wappinger Indians led by their chief Daniel Nim- ham claimed ownership of all but a small section of this patent on the ground that the Indian title had not been extinguished. Many tenants seeing an opportunity to escape semifeudal obligations to the Philipse patentees bought title or accepted leaseholds on much more favorable
94
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
terms from the natives. The Stockbridge Indians, noting the success of their Wappinger cousins, began to make similar claims against lands held by the Livingstons and Van Rensselaers. This was enough to unite the great landlords to fight the claims of the Wappingers.
The issue was soon brought to court. The judiciary, dominated by wealthy landowners and their friends, did not give the Indians a fair chance to defend their titles. But the unrest was not so easily quieted, and in April 1765 the Mohicans advanced a claim to a large portion of the Van Rensselaer estate. By November of that year the tenants in Dutchess County led by William Prendergast and others were in open rebellion to win greater security of tenure and lower rents. The revolt of the small farmer grew steadily, and by the spring of 1766 many sec- tions of rural New York were affected. The embattled tenants confidently expected support from the Sons of Liberty, but it was not forthcoming because the wealthy citizens who controlled the Liberty Boys had no sympathy for this agrarian attack on the rights of property. Worse still, the colonial government which had dealt cautiously with the Stamp Act rioters did not hesitate to use force to crush the disaffected tenants.
The formidable opposition of the colonial government and the wealthy classes was too much for the rebellious farmers. The revolt was defeated quickly and its principal leaders were imprisoned. Prendergast was sen- tenced to be tortured and then executed by beheading, following which his body was to be quartered. Fortunately, he was saved from this grue- some fate and granted his freedom by a royal pardon.
The tenant uprising of 1766 left behind it much hatred of the land- lords. When most of the great landholders of the upper Hudson, notably the Van Rensselaers and the Livingstons, joined the Patriotic cause, many of their tenants automatically became Loyalists. Some disgruntled tenants left their homes to take up lands in the New Hampshire grants. These men had little love for the colony and generally supported the separatist movement which finally resulted in the establishment of the state of Ver- mont in territory claimed by New York. The uprising also left a distaste for the British in the minds of the great landlords, who felt that the Crown was unduly lenient with the revolting tenants.
The focal point for discontent in the pre-Revolutionary era was in the realm of economics, as is indicated by the reaction to the stamp tax and by the tenant revolt. But the uneasiness which found focus in economic matters was generated in the social, cultural, and political phases of living as well. Present in the colony were people of Dutch, British, and French descent, together with smaller proportions of other nationality groups. Except for the English segment of the British group, these people had no firm attachment to the culture represented by the Crown. Perhaps it is a tribute to the skill of the British government, which at this time was
95
SEVERING THE TIES OF EMPIRE
relatively inexperienced in imperial management, that it succeeded in preventing discontent from appearing openly in areas apart from the economic. Certainly it could have arisen. The Forsey-Cunningham affair threatened to develop into just such a point of dissension. Another nearly came to a head when late in the 1760's there was a movement to create an Episcopal bishopric in New York City. Immediately there was a strong reaction on the part of non-Episcopalians, who feared that the Church of England, which had been established as the state church in the four lower counties by the Ministry Act of 1693, would be granted similar status throughout the entire province. John Morin Scott and William Livingston were among the leaders who opposed the establishment of the bishopric. The British backed down, and no bishop came to New York.
It is important to note that while economic affairs brought on the crises, the colonial demands were always expressed in terms of political philos- ophy. Thus the Stamp Act brought the cry: "No taxation without repre- sentation"-a theory defended in the press and on the rostrum. As a re- sult, during the pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary eras New Yorkers were bombarded by the liberal theories of democratic political philos- ophy. In short, the leaders of the revolt educated their countrymen in democratic theory.
The year 1767 brought renewed effort on the part of Parliament to assert its authority over the colonists. The New York legislature was for- bidden to transact business until British troops within the colony were furnished barracks and certain supplies under the terms of the Mutiny Act of 1765. Although the province had an unusually heavy military bur- den because General Thomas Gage made his headquarters within its borders, it complied with the parliamentary law, but only after Governor Moore had suspended the Assembly in 1765 and called for a new legisla- ture. In this same year the Townshend Acts were passed, placing an im- port tax on paper, glass, painters' colors, and tea.
In New York the new tariffs were collected for over twelve months with only minor objections. On August 27, 1768, however, the merchants agreed to purchase no more British goods after November 1 unless the duties were removed. This delayed reaction probably was set off by a decline in business prosperity, which in turn was at least partially the result of other parliamentary legislation. In 1764 a British law had pro- hibited the issuance of paper money by the American colonies and had made it illegal to extend the legal tender provisions of bills in circulation after the date set for redemption. Under the terms of this act paper money issued by New York would be valueless after 1768. Since there was not enough gold and silver coin in the colony to transact business, prosperity waned.
The Sons of Liberty reappeared to whip up the inhabitants of New
96
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
York City, who were already disturbed by unemployment. "Liberty poles" sprang up as symbols of opposition to imperial authority. British soldiers considered the poles offensive and cut them down almost as quickly as they were raised. On January 18, 1770, the Sons and a group of soldiers clashed in a riot which had been exalted as the Battle of Golden Hill. Actually it was nothing more than a mob fight, and the most serious casualties were cuts and bruises. In April of this year Parliament repealed the import duties except for the tax on tea and in the same session authorized New York to issue £120,000 in paper money. The tension between the colony and the mother country quickly relaxed, and the years 1771 and 1772 were quiet.
Peaceful relations, however, were shaken in 1773, when the British East India Company was authorized to export tea to America subject to a threepenny tax per pound. This arrangement would have provided New Yorkers with cheap tea, cheaper in fact than smuggled tea. Colonial mer- chants, except those chosen to handle the East India Company's product, would lose customers. Furthermore, the ruling raised the old issue of taxa- tion. The leading radicals prepared a document entitled "The Association of the Sons of Liberty," which called for a boycott of anybody who ac- cepted tea from the East India Company. On the enforcement committee were the old radicals John Morin Scott, Isaac Sears, and John Lamb and, in addition, Alexander McDougall, who had attained important standing in the Sons by his open defiance of Acting Governor Colden three years earlier. The success of the Boston Tea Party, news of which was carried to New York City by Paul Revere, hardened the determination to prevent the landing of tea in Manhattan. The first tea ship to reach the colony returned to England without unloading her cargo. Finally, when the London, commanded by Captain Chambers, arrived in April 1774, irate colonists boarded her and dumped eighteen boxes of tea into New York harbor.
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.