USA > New York > Loyalism in New York during the American revolution > Part 2
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
17
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
17]
Important events like Leisler's rebellion, the contest over courts and the tenure of judges, Zenger's trial, the founding of King's College, the stamp act, the laying of the tea duty, the first Continental Congress, and the Declaration of Inde- pendence called forth an intense partisan spirit and produced readjustments of party adherents and a further differentiation of principles. After allowing for these changes in the mem- bership and motives of the two groups, it can be said that they were representative of those elements which, after nearly a century, were to produce the whig and loyalist parties of the revolution. Neither side held a fixed set of politi- cal tenets from 1690 to 1776, but only revealed connected tendencies.1 At times the aristocratic party was in accord with the liberty party in its contest for some of the elements of self-government, but as a rule it upheld parliamentary supremacy and the royal prerogatives.
Party feeling was moulded by circumstances. After the death of governor Bellomont, it was so intense that civil war was scarcely averted,2 while in 1719 governor Hunter wrote that " the very name of party or faction seems to be forgot- ten."" Under Cosby it was embittered by rival newspapers and personal and family feuds.4 Zenger's trial, which was made a party issue, shows the construction of the two fac- tions.5 In the days of Leisler the groups were formed on lines of wealth and social rank. Persons of all faiths and tongues were found on both sides. Fifty years later, the
1 Crown officials with liberal views were sometimes found on the popular side. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., iv, 303, 322, 323, 379, 380, 400, 401, 508, 515 620, 848, etc.
2 Ibid., 848, 881, 916, 925, 946-948.
3 Ibid., v, 493, 522, 529; Smith, Hist. of N. Y. (Albany, 1814), 227.
+ Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vi, 636. Report of Privy Council on New York.
5 /bid., v, 982; vi, 5, 6, 7, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80; vii, 528, 909.
18
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [18
"court party" no longer held all the aristocracy in its ranks. The Livingstons, Philip Schuyler, Adolph Phillipse and others, all Calvinists or Lutherans, had then shifted to the popular party. Religion had become a political factor of considerable force. Nearly all the Anglicans of property and wealth, but only a few rich Hollanders and Huguenots. of other creeds, were then in the "court party." The two parties had also become more clearly divided on political issues, though they still held common ground on some of the great questions at issue between the mother country and the colony.
The sectarian controversy over King's College helped to define the parties still further.1 It threw into the foreground individual animosities and denominational bigotry. The "Episcopalian party " and the "DeLancey party " now came to be synonyms for the "court party," while their opponents were called the "Presbyterian party" or the "Livingston party."' Creed had become an important basis of political organization. William Livingston voiced the sentiments of his party when he declared that the proposition of Archbishop Secker to establish an Anglican college at public expense, and the tory strivings of the DeLancey clique, were all parts of one plan to strengthen the royal prerogatives at the ex- pense of popular rights, and to enlarge the power and or- ganization of the episcopacy against non-conformists.3 Whatever may have been the motives involved, the Angli-
1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vi, 625, 685, 777, 910, 913, vii, 217, 371; Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 3, 10-16; cf. Am. Hist. Rev., i, 240; cf. Mem. Ilist. of N. Y.City, ii, 303; cf. Beardsley, Life of Samuel Johnson.
2 Smith, Hist. of N. Y. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., iv), 273. These names were still used fof the parties in 1774. Cf. John Adams' Diary for Aug. 20, 1774. For leading members of each party, cf. Dunlap, Hist. of Province of IV. Y., i, 395-396.
3 Independent Reflector in Gaine's N. Y. Mercury, no. 43, June 4, 1753; cf. Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 12-17; cf. Smith, Hist. of N .. Y. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Col!s., iv), 191; cf. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col .. Hist., vi, 913.
19
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
19]
cans won an immediate victory in the contest, though it cost them defeat at the polls in the next election.1
Both parties united against the stamp act. "It occasioned," said Colden, " a universal tumult."? He complained for months of standing almost alone in upholding the acts of parliament and the royal rights. Only a few " disinterested friends," like General Gage, Major James, Sir William John- son and the Church of England ministers, supported him.3 He believed, however, that "great numbers in the city" were intimidated, and that the people outside of the metrop- olis were "absolutely free from the seditious spirit."" The anarchy of the fickle mob soon alienated the conservatives.5 The great body of the business men, professional men and land-owners began to urge moderation and the adoption of legal methods of redress. At first they had encouraged the mob and used it, but they soon began to fear it. Many of the DeLancey party took the first opportunity to desert the "opposition."6 A few extremists, the Episcopalian clergy and royal officers, horrified at the thought of rebellion, took the British side and defended the stamp act.7 They sneered at the Stamp Act Congress and denounced it as "unconsti- tutional and unlawful." 8 With the repeal of the stamp act,
N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1876), 34.
2 Ibid. (1877), 27; Jones, Ilist. of N. Y., i, 18; cf. Dawson, Westchester Co., 4, n. 2.
8 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1876), 462, (1877), 27, 44, 49; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vii, 790.
‘ N. V. ITist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 61, 62, 77. But this was one of Colden's hasty judgments. Cf. Ibid., 115, and Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., vii, 812, 838, 845, 849, 910.
6 N. Y. City during the Revolution, 41-49; cf. Mag. of Am. Hist., i, 361-352. 6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 61.
' N. Y. Mercury, May 20, 1765, no. 708; June 17, 1765, no. 712. Cf. N. Y. Assemb. Four., ii, 787.
8 N. Y. Gazette, Feb. 3, 1776; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 35.
20
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [20
the party lines, obscured by the excitement over that measure, reappeared. In the election of 1768 " the whole force of both sides " was exerted, and the "whig interest" was overwhelmingly defeated.1 All the DeLancey men who were elected, save one, became loyalists.2 Peter Van Schaack predicted that the "party spirit which had been aroused would never be extinguished." 3
By 1770 the two parties had become fairly well distin- guished and defined. Each was now more nearly than ever before a distinct political organization, with its own caucus, leaders, candidates, platform and method of work. Each side was subdivided into liberals and conservatives. The extreme wing of the tory party was still led by Colden and his coterie. They stood for a rigid execution of imperial law. The moderates, who constituted a large majority of the party, did not wholly sympathize with the conservative element. They were guided by the aristocratic landholders, merchants and traders, mostly of the Anglican persuasion. But some Lutherans, members of the Dutch Reformed con- gregations and even "several Presbyterians" were found among the "friends of government."+ That party was no longer co-extensive with the established church, a proof that political issues were fast becoming paramount.
The party was bound together by a social network of the influential families like the De Puysters, the Waltons, the Crugers, and the De Lanceys, who were united by blood or marriage to more than half of the aristocracy of the Hudson Valley.ª Its members venerated forms and traditions. Loy-
1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 182, 211. 2 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 18.
$ Van Schaack, Life of Peter Van Schaack.
4 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 211.
5 A few of the other prominent families were the Verplancks, Rensselaers, Wattses, Van Cortlandts, Joneses, Coldens, Morrises, Lispenards, Johnsons, Bayards and Cuylers. Cf. Dunlap, Hist. of the Province of N. Y., i, 396; cf. Sinith, Hist. of N. Y. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls., iv), 273.
21
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
21]
alty was a part of their religious teaching. The republican spirit in the colony was by them condemned and the empire praised. They loved the king and respected parliament, but many of them stood up as valiantly as the whigs for the American interpretation of the British constitution. Their rights once secured, their fondest hope was peace, a united empire, and friendly commercial relations. Owing to these political beliefs many of the loyalists were not averse to a mild show of force in order to bring Great Britain to terms.
After 1770, every important event became a party ques- tion. The McDougal trial was made a distinct political issue,1 but in this neither party won a decisive victory.2 The parties divided over non-importation, when all duties but that on tea were removed. "We have two parties violently opposed to each other," wrote Colden." The popular party still fav- ored boycotting all English goods.4 The tories wished to confine this policy to tea alone, canvassed the city, found that 3,000 out of 4, 154 favored the course they recommended, and won the day.5 The attempt made to collect the tea-tax aroused party discussions.6 The three "public gazettes teemed with articles upon it."1 The Sons of Liberty fav- ored a general non-consumption agreement,8 but the tories
1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 212; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 208, 213.
2 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 29-33.
$ N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 220.
+ Leake, Life of John Lamb, 63-64.
5 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 220, 223, 224, 227, 228, 230, 251. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 218.
6 Ibid., 400-401.
1 Ibid., 408. Governor Tryon said they were written " alternately by good citi- zens and fair traders, by men of cool sense and just discernment, on the one hand, by fraudulent dealers, artful smugglers, inflamatory politicians and patriots on the other." But this is a prejudiced loyalist's statement.
8 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 403, 408.
22
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [22
were not with them in 1773 as in 1765. Having a majority in the three branches of the government,' the latter took things rather moderately though in the assembly they named a committee of correspondence.2 Although the Bos- ton Port Bill became " the subject of all conversation," many ardent tories believed that Boston ought to pay for the " drowned tea."3 Fearing that the whig leaders would " run the city into dangerous measures," they attended the mass meeting called to discuss the situation and elected a safe majority of the committee of fifty-one.4
It must be remembered that at this time the contest was not one between those who favored and those who opposed the acts of the English government-for both parties opposed them-but was over the form which that opposition should take. The ultra-tories who upheld the acts of parliament took no part whatever in these proceedings.5 The liberal tories acted with " a resolution to prevent any violent or rash measures being entered into, and to preserve the peace of the colony." 6 A general non-importation agreement was not revived, since all the counties but Suffolk opposed the idea.1 The committee of fifty-one was controlled by moder- ate loyalists, yet it was one of the strongest factors in under- mining the power of the crown and parliament. It helped to call the Continental Congress, which usurped authority
1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 248, 249; N. Y. Ilist. Soc. Colls.(1877), 218.
2 N. Y. Assemb. Jour. (1767-1776, 8th part), 7, 13, 14, 16, 102, 105; Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 417.
& N. Y. Ilist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 339; Am. Archs., 4 ser., i, 289.
+ Ibid., 302, 293; Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 439, 467; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 342. No less than twenty-one members of the committee later became avowed loyalists.
5 Jones, Ilist. of N. Y., i, 34; Dawson, Westchester Co., II.
6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 342.
1 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 297, 702, 703; Leake, Life of John Lamb, 87.
1
1
-
23
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
23]
not delegated to it, raised the standard of armed revolution and closed the door of reconciliation, which it was instructed to open as widely as possible, overthrew monarchy and cre- ated a republic.1
The election of delegates to the Continental Congress was made a political issue. Each party had its ticket. In the committee of fifty-one the moderate loyalists won," as they also did at the polls.4 Livingston and Low were moderate whigs, while Duane, Jay and Alsop were looked upon as loyalists.3 All except Livingston were Anglicans.6 " A great deal of pains has been taken," wrote Colden, "to persuade the counties to choose delegates for the Congress, or to adopt those sent by the city." 1 Westchester, Dutchess and Albany authorized the "city delegates" to act for them.8 Kings, Suffolk and Orange sent representatives of their own.9 Cumberland, Gloucester, Charlotte, Tryon, Richmond, Ulster and Queens paid no attention to the demand.1º Not even half a dozen in Queens county could be induced to meet to consider the matter, while in Orange and other counties twenty out of over a thousand freeholders elected the dele- gates.11 In Westchester county representatives were chosen by only four towns.12 " It is notorious," asserted Seabury, "that in some districts only three or four met and chose
1 Cf. Dawson, Westchester Co., 12, 13.
2 Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 302, 307, 308.
3 Ibid., 308; Rivington's Gazette, July 14, 1774; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 346, 348.
* Ibid., 352; Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 320, 321; Leake, Life of John Lamb, 94; Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 464.
5 Ibid., 34; Dawson, Westchester Co., II, n. 1, 34, n. 3.
6 John Adams' Diary, August 22, 1774.
1 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 493.
8 Jour. of Cont. Cong., Sept. 5, 1774. Credentials of delegates. 9 Ibid.
10 Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 493. 11 Ibid.
12 Dawson, Westchester Co., 29.
. 1
24
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [24
themselves to be a committee on this most important occasion. So that, taking the whole province together, I am confident your delegates had not the voice of an hundredth part of the people in their favor."1 Statements like this represent the feelings of the ultra-loyalists. Though they are exagger- ations, still they show the significant fact that the rural dis- tricts of New York were indifferent or hostile to the Conti- nental Congress.2
The moderate loyalists looked not unfavorably upon the Continental Congress. 3 While the extremists did not wholly sanction it, yet they hoped for some beneficial re- sult. Dr. Cooper rejoiced that it took the dispute out of the hands of the rabble.' " A redress of grievances, and a firm union between Great Britain and America upon consti- tutional principles, was their only aim," wrote the severe loyalist historian, Judge Thomas Jones.5 Even Colden hoped that Congress would " produce some good." " Others thought the "wisdom and prudence of Congress" might avert rebellion.7 All hoped or expected that peace would be the result.8 The first public declaration of the thorough-
1 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 13, 14; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ?, 18. He asserted that in every place outside of New York city the non-voters far outnumbered the voters.
' Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Ilist., viii, 488, 492, 493; Onderdonk, Queens Co., 16; Dawson, Westchester Co., 35; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now?, 18.
3 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 34, 35, 449-468. All moderates, and they were not a few, looked to a general American Congress for obtaining a restoration of tran- quility and a reconciliation with Great Britain. Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 30; Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 2; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 20- 24; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ?, 6.
Cooper, American Querist, etc., Queries 90-100.
5 Jones, Hist. of N. Y., i, 35. 6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 350.
7 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 2.
8 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 12, 22, 24; Cooper, A Friendly Ad- dress, etc., 30; Cooper, American Querist, etc., query 90; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 341.
25
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
25]
going loyalists came from the town of Rye, Westchester county, September 24, 1774. It was a manifesto of loyalism. Content with English rule, as organized in the imperial parliament and in the province, and happy as subjects of George III., they discountenanced all attempts to disrupt the existing relations.2
Nothing is clearer than that the Continental Congress did not meet, intentionally, as a revolutionary body. There was no design to declare for armed resistance and few, if any, dreamed of a Declaration of Independence. The sole ob- ject was to uphold the American interpretation of the polit- ical relations of the various local governments to the imperial government, and to accomplish that by united but moderate measures. Yet this body, to the horror of the loyalists, was soon diverted from its original purpose and became an instrument for the promotion of revolution and independence.
No sooner had Congress convened than the loyalists be- came very active. They expressed their political beliefs with a greater liberty than had been known in years.2 More loyalist tracts, pamphlets, sermons and letters were printed " in favor of administration, and against measures which may be offensive to parliament, than in all the colonies put to- gether."$ Foremost among the loyalist writers were Dr. Myles Cooper,4 Dr. Samuel Seabury, Rev. T. B. Chandler, Isaac Wilkins, Rev. Charles Inglis and Rev. John Vardill, all staunch Episcopalians, whose philippics were hurled against Congress.5 "The turbulent, factious few" were sup-
' Rivington's N. Y. Gazetteer, no. 78, Oct. 23, 1774; Dawson, Westchester Co., 32; Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 34.
' N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 359, 360, 367; Am. Archs., 4th ser., i, 373.
3 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 368.
"Colden said he was the supposed author of almost every loyalist pamphlet. Docs. rel. to N. Y. Col. Hist., viii, 297, 898.
5 Cf. Tyler, Literary Hist. of Am. Rev .; cf. Perry, Hist. of Am. Episc. Church.
26
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [26
pressed.' It was generally believed, however, that the " mod- erate, prudent men" would prevent radical measures.2 Gal- loway's " Plan of Accommodation " was regarded by some as a solution of the problem. Duane and Jay favored it3 and Colden pronounced it a " rational mode of proceeding, evi- dently tending to a reconciliation.""
The loyalists watched Congress with the keenest interest, but they hoped for bread and got a stone. Peace and not war was what they wanted. The counties were almost wholly for moderate measures.5 "A large majority of the mer- chants and people" of the city opposed a non-intercourse act. After Congress adjourned Colden wrote to Lord Dart- mouth that "a great majority in this province are very far from approving of the dangerous and extravagant measures" and longed for a reconciliation.6 Loyalists felt that Congress had betrayed them. They had hoped, wrote Seabury, that "the wisdom and prudence of Congress" would deliver the colonies from rampant rebellion and bring peace, but that body broke up "without ever attempting it," and "basely betrayed the interests of all the colonies." 7
It was asserted that the New York delegates must have been forced to sign the acts to make the colonies rebels, to shut the courts, to replace the regular government by com- mittees and to call a second congress.8 The delegates had
1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 367, 368; Am. Archs., 4 ser., i, 327.
2 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 360.
' Dawson, Westchester Co., 33, 34.
‘N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 374.
" Ibid., 368; Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 1-6; Cf. Memoirs of Henry Van Schaack, 33.
6 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. (1877), 369, 375.
" Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 1, 2; cf. Cooper, A Friendly Address, etc., 30; Cj. Memoirs of Henry Van Schaack, 28, note.
8 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 7-11.
1
27
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
27]
been unfairly elected. The committee of New York city had no right to dictate to the counties, or to regard silent counties as favoring a congress. Should they be bound by its acts then?' The people were quiet only because they expected peace.2 But congress assumed the power of leg- islation and foisted the association upon the people and ordered committees to enforce it.3 The laws of a congress were made to supersede the provincial laws, and liberty to depend upon the will of a committee.4 "You have blustered and bellowed," mockingly wrote a loyalist pamphleteer, "and swaggered and bragged that no British parliament should dispose of a penny of your money without your leave, and now you suffer yourselves to be bullied by a congress and cowed by a committee." Now you find that legislation and taxation go together. Your liberty and property are at the mercy of a committee. This is indeed a new " passive obedience and non-resistance." 5
The non-intercourse and non-consumption agreements, it was said, will shut the colonies off from the whole world. " Can we think to threaten and bully and frighten the supreme government of the nation into a compliance with our de- mands?" The injury to America in one year will be greater than the three-penny tea-duty will amount to in twenty years. The farmers will suffer most, since scheming mer- chants and wily traders are at the bottom of all this con- fusion.6 But " our sovereign lords and masters, the high and mighty delegates in grand Continental Congress assembled have ordered and directed it." Tyrannical committees have been appointed to execute it. Obedience to such a com- mand is slavery. The New York city committee will then
1 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 13, 14. 2 Ibid., 20-24.
' Ibid., 25-29. + Ibid., 30, 31.
6 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 10, 11, 19-31, 33, 34.
5 Ibid., 33-38.
28
LOYALISM IN NEW YORK [28
order the county committees to enforce the edicts. Will you submit to such tyranny and abject slavery ? Will you choose committees or let them be chosen? "Let us ignore the half-dozen fools who meet and choose themselves a com- mittee. Let us assert our freedom and, if necessary, as- semble ourselves."' These seditious committeemen are not defending our rights and liberties, but are "making us the most abject slaves that ever existed." " Renounce all depend- ence on congresses and committees. They have neglected or betrayed your interests. Turn your eyes to your consti- tutional representatives." They will soon meet. Trust them to secure peace.4
You are honor-bound to the English government. You ought, therefore, to oppose the laws of congress. They cannot be executed without violating known laws. The laws of God, nature and New York all forbid your hinder- ing a man in his regular business. Can the laws of congress do it, then? Is any one bound to obey the acts of that body ?3 Why, all your imagined evils endured for a century are not so bad as these for a year. You can never justify violent means of redress until all peaceable, constitutional ones have been tried.4
The disappointment of the loyalists at the course followed - by Congress is not difficult of explanation. That body was a voluntary association, with no legal authority to bind the colonists in any degree. It was not empowered to exercise legislative functions, nor to exact obedience under legal pen-
1 Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 37. Cf. Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 6. Let the " friends to order and government," suggested Dr. Cooper, " assume the courage openly to declare their sentiments." A Friendly Address, etc., 34.
" Seabury, Free Thoughts, etc., 39-48.
3 Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 39-43; Free Thoughts, etc., 46-48; Chandler, What Think Ye of Congress Now ? 6-17.
+ Seabury, The Congress Canvassed, etc., 44-47.
29]
29
RISE OF THE LOYALIST PARTY
alties. At most it could only recommend certain lines of action. The loyalists declared that it exceeded the authority delegated to it, and therefore its acts were unwarrantable and revolutionary. Hence it was to be expected that dis- content and alarm should arise in the hearts of those who hoped for, and were promised, something quite different. They merely refused to be forced into rebellion, and decided to repudiate the decrees which were bringing war and ruin to them instead of peace and quiet. Consequently, the dis- content and opposition which sprang up all over the pro- vince were not so surprising.
The agriculturists, who had refused to take action in seven counties regarding the calling of a Continental Congress, were not injured by a tea-tax nearly so much as by political disturbances, non intercourse and war. Hence they turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the city merchants and of the Sons of Liberty, and ignored the methods of redress ordered by Congress. New York city and Albany, the mercantile centers, were most active in calling Congress and in obeying its decrees.1 This great body of moderate business-men, whose political principles were naturally tinged with com- mercialism, were opposed by the handful of explosive revo- lutionists, the Sons of Liberty, because they did not go far enough, and by the king's agents and the Anglican clergy- men for having gone too far.
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.