USA > New York > New York City > Old New York : a journal relating to the history and antiquities of New York City, Vol. II > Part 35
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
01 0107
ninty ad
·
bord 1
Tebnow
374
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
ties like shuttlecocks, whoever or whatever savored of James or reaction, or opposition to the revolution, should be dubbed "popish !" It all made the landing of William an event of joy.
It is not unimportant to know what lay back of that revolution and gave it peculiarity. Emotions, popular or personal, have roots more or less deep seated ; and when at last the revolution appeared above ground, it had a strength and diffusion and col- oring not to be accounted for by superficial causes. It was no such thing as an Indian juggler plants, a seed in the sand, waters and at length produces an outspread bush, by means hidden by him un- der a basket. It had roots enough in their situation, in long contin- ued civil exactions, in religious fears excited by Louis and James, and the disaffection thereto consequent. The officials of James when it broke out (we need only say) were Nicholson, the Lieut. Gov- ernor under Andros at Boston ; with a resident Council consist- ing of Philipse, Van Cortlandt and Bayard-names of constant recurrence in this history. And now late in April, 1689, there occurred in the little city a great "uproar" (I am quoting the Council), an " uproar through people coming from Boston," who brought " the surprising news that its inhabitants had set up a gov- ernment for themselves and disabled his Excellency from acting." An exciting yeast to the prevailing discontent, one sure to cause a rising ! But what thought Nicholson and his Council about it ? We have it in their letter to Andros : " We cannot imagine that any such actions can proceed from any person of quality amongst · them, but rather that they were promoted by the rabble." The key note (as I think we shall find) to much of this history. First, it will be seen, they ignore utterly any grounds of general disaffection to James and Andros and his government; it must have been " the rabble." And second, what a sharp distinction they draw between persons of quality and " the rabble !" No " person of quality " would join in " such actions"-these were, to them, the two classes composing the community. And when it comes to New York, where they themselves are the responsible government, under Andros, it will be the same; no cause, "the lower classes, the rabble !" It is most important, at this point, to get their position. Of course they sympathized with Andros and not with the revolution in Boston; but that does not explain
478
baddub 56 5 100
lou bas
375
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
everything. As to Nicholson, he was an old soldier whose royal master at present was James. Being out of the whirl and sweep of things in England, he had no belief as yet in William's suc- cess against him. "Nonsense," he exclaimed contemptuously, " the very 'prentice boys of London would drive him out again." Of course, therefore, he would do nothing till William was king, or he was forced to. Frederic Philipse, his oldest councillor, was the wealthiest man in the city, the first proprietor of the Philipse manor, " der Heer " Philipse; who, as a councillor also, had held proud preeminence for twenty years ; reserved, cautious, and it is said a wonderfully shrewd trimmer for safety or profit; but not one to be ousted from office if he could help it, not one to yield willingly his place in the government whoever might be king, William or James. Stephen Van Cortlandt was also known as " der Heer " Van Cortlandt, his wife as Lady Van Cortlandt; a man personally most estimable and respected ; as mayor of the city, public spirited ; charitable, an elder in the Dutch Church ; but with the pride and prejudices of class and position and wealth. The most conspicuous in these events, however, although the youngest, was Nicolas Bayard ; described to us as bright, witty, elegant, and with warm friends among his social and political equals, but fond of display, imperious, quick tempered and vin- dictive, and by his inferiors feared and disliked-a point to be remembered in the sequel. It now connects our narrative with the past and accounts for much, to say that these three, Philipse, Van Cortlandt and Bayard, with five others-all well known at Whitehall-had been carefully selected as Councillors by James when, in 1686, he annulled the liberties of the people ; when he made Dongan and the Council the absolute law makers and tax gatherers. They were there as the Council during his adminis- tration ; when, as Secretary Randolph pithily put it, the people were being " squeezed dry"; when old titles to real estate were disputed, that larger fees might be exacted ; when six farmers of Easthampton, who protested against the tyranny, were arraigned before them ; there, compliant agents of James in whatever he ordered, and concerned in whatever was done. Could they expect to hold the emoluments without sharing the odium ? Could they expect it to be forgotten, when, after a while they
T
8800
10
vody
redt blueO
376
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
chose to acknowledge William? Could they expect at once so to sever themselves from James and Andros and their obnoxious acts as to go right on, still the government because they claimed it? They did expect it, they did claim it, and that was the trouble. They belonged to a class which, by reason of wealth and other adjuncts, had for years almost pre-empted the govern- ment. They asked and obtained and held the offices, they affili- ated with the governors. Socially they were the ones who gave dinners and balls, who did the entertaining for vice-royalty, and lived themselves in the grand style of the day-some of them very elegant, refined and cultivated people, both Dutch and French and English. "Persons of quality, " they claimed to be, "people of figure," society ; the aristocracy of the little city when aristocracy was quite a thing, under the royal governors ; as naturally a party, what Bancroft calls, "the cabal that had grown up around the royal governors." Outside were " the lower classes, the rabble," as they were pleased to call them. They expected and claimed for themselves by right of rank in the community the offices, the government. New England, Boston, had no such aristocracy, topping the surrounding earth with such pride ; they would not have endured it.
0
It is now easy to see their quandary at the time of the "uproar." Boston had not waited for news of William's success ; Boston had overthrown Andros at once, and set up a " government for them- selves." How to hinder the same in New York, that was their problem ; for they meant to hold on, " to continue in their station," at least " till further orders." They had no other thought ; and, unfortunately, those "further orders" were a long time in com- ing. Meanwhile, they held consultations; went among the peo- ple; told them there was " no need of a revolution," that " Nichol- son was honest," "a little patience and orders would come to establish everything upon a proper basis.". Very good advice, with but one weak point; how long would the people be willing to continue under James' Governor and James' Council, and with William not proclaimed ? For a time, however, it succeeded ; the people had "patience," with only (as in Boston) " a general buzzing"-they were as yet like bees without a queen ; or like
1
340
Adorzond
mbolwrongles ot esodo
tim bos
377
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
birds disturbed and fluttering, ready to take wing at the slightest alarm, but not breaking away into actual flight.
It is next in order to say that New York had at the time, be- sides a few soldiers in the fort, six " train-bands," citizen militia. Their colonel was Bayard ; the senior captain was Jacob Leisler ; and the other captains were Abraham De Peyster, Nicolas Stuy- vesant, De Bruyn, Lodwick, Minvielle-good names, men of wealth, intelligence, standing ; men of influence, had they in these decisive days sided with their colonel. To quiet fears caused just then by rumors of the French, it was the Governor's sugges- tion that they should take turns of duty in the fort. How easy to talk to their men if they wished to, to get them under some con- . trol during the month of this service-half a company at a time ! Five-sixths of the time, five-sixths of the men, under their com- mand ! Histories have called this the " Dutch plot," with Leisler as the Mephistopheles thereof; and so we must examine the ground. Stuyvesant was Bayard's own cousin, the sturdy old Governor's son and himself 41 years old. Was there no stuff in these men, these five captains, had they so determined, to meet and withstand one aggressive individual ? Thus, then, the time passed till May 31, a whole month and no outbreak. Accord- ing to the good preaching of the Council, and doubtless of many .others, the people had been exercising the Christian grace of " patience." And, after all, it was not Leisler but the Governor himself who threw the match into the powder. So small a ques- tion as by whose authority a certain sentinel had been posted in the fort led him to dismiss from the service Lieut. Cuyler, of De Peyster's company, for impertinence. A most injudicious act at such a time ! It angered De Peyster and his company, who were on duty. It angered the train-bands, as an act of authority on the part of James' Governor which changed the situation. Where- upon the drums beat. Forty-nine excited men of Leisler's company rushed to his house, demanding to be led to the fort. It is said that he refused ; but they went, nevertheless, under Sergeant Stoll the leader, and Cuyler admitted them " without the word." Thus was this revolution begun ; with De Peyster's company on duty, De Peyster's lieutenant admitting the malcontents of Leis- ler's company to the fort, and presently Leisler himself appearing
TTE
one bodaateth abrid
-1
hi
yasqinos n'ael
378
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
as their commander. Did he usurp the fort over his fellow cap- tain ! No. That night it was Lodwick's turn of duty ; and it was Lodwick and some of his company who appeared at the Council Chamber demanding the keys of the fort, and they had to be given. Even yet, however, the matter was not over. Let us not suppose everything smooth and easy. What pressure these captains must have been under from their relatives and friends ! We know that they had warm discussions with the Governor and Council. It was a serious matter for them, for James might yet be king. And among themselves what discussions; all over the city what debates and disputes-" the divisions of Reuben among the sheepfolds !" Nor was it till June 3d that the real decision. was made. Then Bayard once more called the train-bands to- gether, captains and soldiers, and tried his influence with them. Leisler was not there, but it was in vain. The soldiers rushed to the fort ; and there, after much debate, Leisler drew up a paper which the officers signed. In it they agreed to govern alternately till orders came from England; to hold and guard the fort for William till such time; "the captain whose watch it is," says. Leisler himself, "to be for that time captain of the fort." This paper was also signed by four hundred others in the fort, citizens and soldiers. A moderate paper, yet effective. So far as the city was concerned, it decided the uncertainty ; it was a positive step. in favor of William ; a withdrawal of allegiance to James and the government appointed by him ; it deprived them of all effective power; and at the head of the movement were Leisler and his fellow captains.
At this point occurs the opportunity for some sketch of Captain Jacob Leisler, as a necessary prelude to his connection with these affairs. Leisler came to New York from Frankfort, Germany, in 1661, and was at this time an old and well known citizen ; a mer- chant and man of very considerable property. Two years after his coming he had married Elsie (Tymens), the widow of Vander- veen, a reputable merchant. Elsie was a niece of Anetje Jans. How many families to this day keep bright the links of kinship with the latter, and-her estate, so long owned and guarded and fostered by Trinity Church ! Strangely enough, this marriage brought Leisler, even thus early in life, into a family connection
8 полуато05.
aignord
379
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
with Philipse and Van Cortlandt and Bayard ; at the close of it. his worst enemies. In 1670, we find him a deacon in the Dutch Church, with ex-Governor Stuyvesant and Van Cortlandt's father as fellow members of consistory ; and then, as always, a man of sturdy religious profession and belief. Evidently a man with generous impulses, when a Huguenot family was to be sold for non-payment of ship charges, he himself stepped forward and purchased their freedom. Evidently an independent man, when in 1667 two peo- ple were on trial for "murder by witchcraft," he was one of a jury to acquit them both-a thing the Quakers of Pennsylvania only accomplished in 1684, that could hardly have been done in Boston in 1689. As a magistrate in 1675 he so vigorously opposed an effort of Andros to thrust a priest (whom James had sent over) into occupancy of the Dutch Church, that Andros imprisoned him. Yet that at that time he was well esteemed in the community is evident from the fact that only three years later, in 1678, when he and a vessel of his were captured by the Turks, this same An- dros initiated a collection throughout the province for his redemp- tion. Leisler held few offices, but was called into service when needed ; and he had been captain since 1684. This is what we know of him up to 1689. And we have thus reached an impor- .tant historical question : what was he doing up to June 3d, of that . year? When the first intimations of William's landing came he had a vessel in port, on which he at once refused to pay duties to Plowman, James' collector and a Catholic. He, also, went before the Council, and to them persisted in his refusal-just like his sturdy independence, whether backed by anybody or not. From that time and to escape those duties, according to current histories, he is a dangerous person in the community plotting treason and the overthrow of the Government. Yet at the time of the "uproar " and when Boston had set the example, where is the one man, the demagogue, quick to seize events and bulging with importance, to head " the rabble " to its destruction ?
It is not Leisler. On the contrary, almost immediately there- after, Nicholson and the Council place him in the fort at the head of an armed company to quiet the people ; or, if he so chooses, to breed farther treason! A strange incongruity in the history, or wonderful stupidity on their part! Moreover, when the revolu-
141
pos of
10008
d
H
bourte hood Iirtebnow
380
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
tion begins-that 31st of May-it is through Nicholson's act and not his. And on the 3d of June the result is not to make Leisler a dictator, but that mutual agreement of the captains; in the face of which he is now represented to us as an ignorant man surrounded by " a rabble;" a mere puff-ball fuming with rage and insolence and profanity ; as already infatuated with his own greatness, compar- ing himself to Cromwell, and most offensively assuming to his fellow captains, whilst they are deferential ! What injustice to them, in order to carry out the idea, received from the other side, of Leisler and the "lower classes, the rabble !" History makes them his mere football-Abraham De Peyster, Nicolas Stuyve- sant, Lodwick and the rest; men assuredly not the ones to be dragged at a vulgar cart-tail through mud and slush. History deprives them of their manhood, and in these events would have us regard them as silent puppets upon a street organ, moving to the tune of a coarse and ignorant player. And yet when, just after the revolution, Leisler himself wished to remove the obnox- ious Catholic collector, he could not do it, for the reason which he gives : "I cannot get the other captains to turn out the col- lector ;" and again (June 16) " I can get no captain to side with me to turn him out." Outgoing letters from the fort are signed by the captains, the answers addressed to Leisler and "the rest of the captains" in command. They are so addressed by the General Court of Connecticut. When within a few days after signing that agreement Minvielle resigned, it was not on the ground of Leisler's tyranny and insolence, but because he thought their pro- ceedings "hot headed." The other captains remained, all of them for months. When (June 11) they sent to friends in England an address for the King from "the militia and inhabitants of New York"-her citizen soldiery and only defense-did they regard . the movement as that of a " rabble ?" When, so late as October 20, Bayard-still as colonel and councillor-wrote from Albany to De Peyster and De Bruyn an order "to bear good faith and allegiance " to William and Mary, but "to desist from aiding and abetting" Leisler, they put the letter into his hands; and when yet later (October 29) he again commanded them "to obey the civil government established by Sir Edmund Andros," as still in force, they paid no heed. What do these facts prove ? This
088
18 sb- Anigod nod
bala vedo of
intovog lizlb
381
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
period, the opening period of the revolution, was that of Leisler *and the captains conjointly, not of Leisler and "the rabble." People of standing and influence parted from their own families and friends on these issues. History conceals it and them. It adopts a party stigma. This period was not in the indictment. It was slippery ground, and the Attorney General, when draw- ing an indictment against Leisler, did not touch it.
For a clear understanding of things, however, we must proceed with it a little farther. On the 6th of June came credible news that William' was king; and the messenger was on the way from Boston with letters. No doubt any longer about William ; but will he continue in power the old government? What anxiety on both sides! The messenger gets to the fort first ; and there , all letters for the Governor or the Council are opened, read and forwarded. No news, no orders; and so things remain as they were! But to open their letters, what an outrage! What in- dignation ! What insolence in Leisler! Yet back in March, be- fore Leisler had appeared upon the scene, upon a mere rumor of William's landing, they had themselves opened and suppressed seventeen private letters, "for the prevention of tumult," they said, "and the divulging of such strange news." Where was the differ- ence ? The difference was, that a revolution in England which changed kings-now that it was successful-they were willing to accept ; a revolution in New York, which interfered with themselves as the government, that was Leisler and the rabble ; and whatever derogated from the deference they claimed for themselves was inso- lence. Again, however, the truth of history requires us to ask, what. of the other captains ? Why single out Leisler for obloquy, when, by the agreement of only three days before, all were equally im- plicated, all equally and deeply interested in learning the first news? That plant of unpleasant odor which pervades these events like the sage-brush of the prairies, Leisler's insolence, was grown and perpetuated from party soil.
As yet he was only one of five captains, although the senior. I do not suppose Leisler to have been at any time choice of speech or deferential in his manners; on the contrary a man of rugged honesty whose plain and often hasty speaking did him harm. But that was not the real, the underlying offense. If we read, we shall.
188
wsig sninegh ani ,hoffeq
ji dahww
Elw Bohaod
for ob
Inideservetob so
382
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
find that gentle speaking and gentle courtesy were not a character- istic of New York in these years of that century. "Knave " and "rogue " were frequent epithets by which to convey their opinion of one another. To the other side, however, the revolution itself was an insolence ; whatever infringed upon the dignity of certain ones, of Van Cortlandt or Bayard or even the clergy, was an in- solence ; and upon Leisler, a German, with none of the make-up of society about him, the senior, the most popular, the boldest and most outspoken of his colleagues, upon him they visited the full measure of wrath and opprobrium. And the feeling was already hot enough-on both sides. When of Sir William Phipps, of Massachusetts, it was said : "His Excellency is needlessly hot;" the reply was: " Ah, you must excuse him, it is dog-days!" The dog-days began early in New York in 1689. Nicholson himself had at once gone to England to interview the new king; leaving Philipse and Van Cortlandt and Bayard behind him to maintain the struggle. On the 25th of June they themselves removed Plowman, the Catholic collector, "to quiet a restless community," as they said ; but when they undertook to replace him with their own officials- more insolence of Leisler ! It brought about the first actual colli- sion. The parties met at the custom house. There were hot words, dog-day words, a hustling crowd and some rough usage of Bayard and his supporters, but no bloodshed. A street brawl, some pum- meling, but no bloodshed. The feeling abroad was, however, in- tense ; and De Peyster's mother advised Bayard to leave the city, for fear of assassination. Wisely, no doubt; he was especially ob- noxious, and some hand might have struck the blow; it has been done again and again since then. And so the parties were at length developed; the captains holding the fort and the city, the old council powerless but persistent.
On the 10th of June, a week after the revolution began, the captains, Leisler and the rest, issued a call for a convention of delegates from the counties, to meet the 26th and choose a com- mittee of safety. Let us give them the credit they deserve for this act. They did not intend nor make themselves a military dictatorship. The movement in New York had been democratic, one springing from the people, whom they for a time represented ; and they meant to extend it to the province-not submitting any
288
1
AW
0
18
383
The Leisler Troubles in 1689.
* longer to the appointees of James and Andros, but submitting the direction of affairs to the appointees of the people. Had the other side accepted the arrangement-a Committee of Safety till the king could be heard from-what a blot it would have saved New York! But no, they were the government. So the convention met without their concurrence, twelve delegates elected from New York and Kings and Queens and Westchester and Orange ; " the most part of whose inhabitants" (says O'Callaghan's history) "are concerned in the rebellion." Albany, under the great influence of Peter Schuyler, Van Cortlandt's double brother-in-law, remained aloof, and its neighbor Ulster. Ten of the twelve dele- gates became the Committee of Safety, and assumed control for the province. Leisler did not elect them. His was a city revolt. More than is usual in such cases, and more than did Simon Brad- street and his colleagues at the first, by their election they repre- sented the province in its most populous parts. Such was the sit- uation upon the 26th of June-a popular revolt, represented by the Committee of Safety, against the old government appointed by James and Andros and the party attached thereto. What was the effect of the change upon Leisler's position ? It made him first, by their appointment, captain of the fort, that is, perma- nentlv responsible for its safe keeping ; and then, about the mid- dle of August, military commander for the province. His first rise above the other captains! But that they concurred therein is indubitable, since they all retained their commands un'der him till some time in November. During that month Stuyvesant retired from the service, angry, it is said, because some soldiers had intruded into his own house during a search for his. obnoxious cousin Bayard. Our only wonder in his case is that his father's son should ever have been upon the popular side at all. At dif- ferent dates during the month and for different personal reasons Lodwick and De Peyster also resigned and retired from service unmolested. De Peyster, at least, always felt kindly toward Leis- ler. Within a month (Dec. 13) he was appointed by the Lieut. Governor, as Leisler then was, and by his council, captain of the dock ward, with his brother Henry as his lieutenant, responsible positions at the time.
I have been thus minute hitherto, because this whole history has
288
2.
10
10
8
noisiaog
384
The Leisler Troubles in 1689 ..
been perverted by concealing the part actually taken by these cap- tains in the earlier stages of the revolution, and by ascribing every- thing to Leisler and a rabble. It is the base of the defense of the other side. They were throughout, for two years, resisting Leis- ler and a dominant rabble-a riotous rule which only ended with Leisler's death. On the contrary, what have we? Upon the 3d of June, that agreement of the captains; upon the 6th of June, news of William's accession, concurred in by both parties, and the question of William or James no longer in conflict ; upon the 10th of June, the call by the captains for a committee of safety to be elected by the people; and, upon the 26th of June, that committee in existence and its actions and authority submitted to by both Leisler and the captains and their party. And so opens the sec- ond, in its close the tragic part, of this tangled history. At last, early in December, a letter from William, dated July the fourth ; a letter with a peculiar address, to " Our Lieut. Governor and Com- mander-in-chief in our province of New York, and in his absence, to such as for the time being take care for preserving the peace and administering the laws!" Up to this time, be it understood, nothing from William save a general proclamation relative to jus- tices of the peace and other minor officials ; nothing at all to indi- cate his intentions or policy concerning higher officers of the crown. Of course the letter threw the elements into new fermentation. As it happened, Nicholson, to whom it was addressed, was not there, had betaken himself to England ; so that complication, was out of the way. But "in his absence!" If still in the exercise of his office, where should he be except within the bounds of his gov- ernment ? Or, in case of absence, why was not the letter addressed to his Hon. Council, men well known in England ? Why the vague and general superscription : " such as for the time being take care for preserving the peace and administering the laws ?" The very hub of this disputation. Can one help suspecting a mo- tive of policy in such language from the state department? In England, James was deposed and William reigning through revo- lution-a revolution thus far successful, although he had yet to- fight the battle of the Boyne. In Boston, as was already known, Andros had likewise been deposed and a revolutionary committee was in charge. Had the same fate, meantime, overtaken Nichol-
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.