USA > New York > Organization of the Revolutionary movement in New York State, 1775-77 > Part 11
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
2. Force, loc. cit.
3. Jay to Livingston, 29 May 1776, Johnston, op. cit., 1, 64, 65. On Morris's presence in Philadelphia, Hancock to Provincial Congress, 11 June 1776, Burnett, Letters, I, 484. Lewis, et al. to President of Provincial Congress, 17 June 1776, Jour, Prov. Cons., II, 197.
136
the delegates acknowledged receipt of this letter, they did not inform the Provincial Congress of their lack of time, nor did they exhort that body to move swiftly to hold the referendum.
The New York delegation's comportment contrasted unfavorably with that of the Maryland delegation. Writing to their council of safety, the Marylanders observed that Congress had delayed a vote on . independence for three weeks in order to give some delegations an op- portunity to consult their "constituents." They urged the council to call the convention into session that that body might express the sense of the people on the subject. As late as June 27 the New Yorkers had occasion to correspond with their Congress, but made absolutely no 1 mention of the impending deadline.
If the Provincial Congress could demonstrate its ignorance of the events in Philadelphia, it might technically justify its actions, but the contrary is the case. Rutledge wrote Jay on June 8 describing the course of the arguments and telling of his fear of being unable to block a victory for independence. It is possible even that Rutledge dispatched his letter in care of the same express rider who carried the New York delegation's letter of the same date. In that event Jay would have received it June 10. Even if this were not true, there is other
evidence to consider. When the Continental Congress suspended dis- cussion of the question, it appointed a committee to draft a declaration and set July for resumption of the argument. Since Morris was present
-
1. Maryland delegates to Maryland Council of Safety, 11 June 1776, Burnett, Letters, I, 484; Jour. Prov. Cons., II, 238.
137
in Philadelphia from the final day of debate, June 10, until June 13, it is inconceivable that Livingston, a close friend, did not tell him of the whole business. Indeed, Morris may very well have attended Congress, since he tore a special letter from New York to the President of Congress. In view of the fact that in May Morris had urged the necessity of independence, it is remarkable that upon his return to New York on June 15 he made no effect to reintroduce the matter in Provincial Congress. Thus at least two leading members of the New York Provincial Congress were cognizant of the crucial nature of af- fairs in Philadelphia, but did nothing to enable their delegation to participate in the voting. 1
Although the June elections came and went, no one in Congress moved to reconsider the resolutions of June 11. £ Indeed Jure faded into July without a word on the subject. Whatever the intentions of the congressmen may have been, their conduct displayed a dubious stand- ard of responsibility toward their constituents. £ It will be recalled that they had implied to the people that they would instruct the colony'e delegates when the question arose on the floor of the Continental Congress. 3 But they did not fulfill their promise. When the British invasion fleet hove in sight, Congress hastily adjourned and voted to meet in White Plains July 2. Jay, who was in Elizabeth Town, reacted angrily to this news:
2
1. Johnston, op. cit., I, 66, n. 1; Jour. Prov. Cong., 1, 496.
2. See above pp. 129-30.
3. Becker, op. cit., p. 273; Jour . Prov. Cong., 1, 512.
138
to my great mortification am informed that our convention Influenced by one of G. Morris vagrant Plans have adjourned to the White Flains to meet there Tomorrow. This precipi- tate ill advised Retreat I fear will be not a little in- jurious to the publick .... This Stroke cf Morrisania Politics ouite confounds me.1
Not being able to assemble a quorum on July 2, the Third Provincial Congress expired without committing the colony to independence.
These Fabian tactics probably owed part of their success to the disorganized state of the city. Washington had converted the port into an armed camp, and most of the able-bodied males were in the army . By June most of the non-combatant population had left the city for safer regions. In this abnormal state, the radicals could not have brought decisive pressure to bear on Congress. Furthermore, the revelations of the Tory plot monopolized so much attention and energy that there was little opportunity to call public meetings on the ques-
tion of independence. 2 Elsewhere in the province, perhaps the lack of strong leadership by Congress on this issue retarded any independent steps by the people. £ Be it noted, however, that in some districts in Albany County the people seized the initiative and voted for independence on June 24. 3 Zibridge Gerry of Massachusetts thought that the people of the colony had outstripped their political leaders:
1. Jay to Livingston, 1 July' 1776, quoted in Frank Monaghan, John Jay, p. 83; Unpublished Corr, R. R. Livingston, no. 27.
2. Nettels, Washington, pp. 291-94.
3. At King's District "a full meeting of the inhabitants" voted unani- mously for independence. A similar meeting occurred in Spencer Town. N. Y. P., 4 July 1776; Force, op. cit., 4th Ser., VI, 1056.
139
I do not affirm that either of these [1.e., New York and Maryland] are of the neuter gender; but on the other hand am persuaded the people are in favour of a total and final separation, and will support the measure, even if the Conventions and Delegates of those Colonies vote against it.1
If popular opinion approved independence, why did the Congress
shy away at the mention of the word? 2
Many of the influential person- ages may have felt as did Livingston:
though at present I wish to join hands with a nation which I have been accustomed to respect, yet I am persuaded that the continuance of the war will break my shackles .... 3
1. Gerry to James Warren, 25 June 1776, ibid., 4th Ser., VI, 1067.
2. Becker, op. cit., pp. 272-73 sums up the situation in this manner: "The cause was simple; affairs in that province were directed by cautious and conservative politicians, who, in the face of an armed foe and surrounded by domestic enemies, were determined to preserve the essentiel features of their ancient political system from what they conceived to be monarchical encroachments on the one hand, as well as from rash democratic experiments on the other. And this achievement, if it could be effected, they were determined should be formally declared by the colony and not by the United Colonies.
"How much weight the latter consideration had, it is impossible to say ."
By June of 1776 the threat of "monarchical encroachmenta" no longer bud any bearing on whether to hasten or delay independence. As Becker himself admitted (p. 266) the Continental resolutions of May 15 #could have but one sequel, the declaration of independence .... " Thus when New York approved these resolutions May 31, the conservatives accepted the same destiny. Furthermore, as the above pages have shown, the New York leaders privately had seen the logic of events, but other factors deterred them. The latter part of Becker's argument is difficult to follow. The only way in which New York could preserve for itself the right to declare independence would be to do so before the Continental Congress, as did Rhode Island in May. If the Yorkers thought that their opposition would prevent the Congress from acting, they ran the risk of isolating their colony. With the Continental Army occupying New York, such a policy would indeed have been rash, and rashness was not charac- teristic of these men.
3. Livingston to Duane, 15 February 1776, Bancroft Transcripts: Living- ston Papers, NYPL.
140
Accompanying this reluctance to break with tradition was a realiza- tion of the war's cost in lives and property. furthermore, since their leaders asked the people to make these sacrifices for the sake of freedom, might not internal disturbances arise over questions of 1
local reform? Some symptoms of discontent had appeared already.
In the critical days of late June "Spartanus" had warned newspaper readers to beware of those who have dragged their heels but now "speak
fair." Let them gain power, he wrote, and they will subject the people 2 "to a tyranny and oppression ... not much better" than the British. Early in 1775 William Smith cautioned Schuyler about the hazards of & Pandora's box:
1. Some of the Dutchess County tenantry were demanding improved leases. Henry B. to R. A. Livingston, May, 1775, Unpublished Corr. R. R. Living- ston, no. 30.
The method of choosing the continental deputies became a controversial natter. In 1775 some of the counties chose their own representatives for Continental Congress, but the Provincial Convention over-ruled these choices and selected a representation for the whole province. The issue rose again in 1776 when the Mechanics demanded that right for the people. So bitter was the controversy in Ulster County that the Provincial Congress had to choose between two sets of credentials; one of which reserved the right to elect continental deputies to the people, the other authorized the provincial deputies to do so. None of these challenges succeeded. Becker, op. cit., p. 256; N. Y. J., 24 August 1775, 4 April 1776; Jay to McDougall, 11 April 1776, McDougall Papers, NYHS; Jour, Prov. Cong., I, 460, II, 199-200. See below pp. 68-71. Some of the local committees ignored the property qualifications for voting. Min, Albany Com., II, 1030. On the same subject, Robert G. Livingston to Gilbert Livingston, 1 January 1782, Gilbert Livingston Papers, NYPL.
The practice of voting by secret ballot took root in some counties. New York General Committee to the People, N. Y. J., 11 April 1776; Robert Boyd, Jr. to Clinton, 3 July 1776, Clinton Papers, I, 244.
2. Quoted in Becker, op. cit., p. 267; "Spartanus," N. Y. J., 20 June 1775; Force, op. cit., 4th Ser., VI, 996.
141
Why raise a military spirit that may furnish unmanageable adventurers on this side of the water unfriendly to a province in which you and I have something else to lose ?1
Duane expressed concern about "licenciousness" and the "means of as- 2 suring the Reins of Government when these Commothers shall subside." McDougall worried over the dual dangers of the "licentiousness of the people" and of the army. "The former feel their own liberty in the extreme, " he wrote to Jay; a sentiment with which the latter concurred. 3
Probably one of the chief reasons for the hyper-caution of the New Yorkers in Congress was their fear that the consequences of an un- successful rebellion would be confiscation and execution. John Adams, Lee and Wythe accused New York of hanging back "that their particular prospect might be better even in the worst event." In a private con- versation with McDougall, William Smith remarked in passing on the risks
1. Smith to Schuyler, 16 May 1775, Schuyler Papers, NYPL; Lossing, Schuyler, 1, 321-22.
Two months later Schuyler incorporated a draft by Smith in orders issued to the troops in New York City. Among the ideas voiced was this: "Let us evince to the world that in contending for liberty we abhor licentiousness .. * Smith, Memoirs, IV, 3 July 1775: Lossing, Schuyler, I, 346.
2. Duane to Robert Livingston, Jr., 7 June 1775, suoted in Beverly McAnear, "Mr. Robert R. Livingston's Reasons against a Land Tax. " Journal of Political Economy, 48:76.
3. McDougall to Jay, 20 March 1776, Jay to McDou-all, 23 March 1776, Jay Papers, CUL; Johnston, op. cit., I, 49-50. Smith says McDougall told him in February that he opposed independence. Smith, Memoirs, V. 12 February 1776, NYPL.
Livingston once commented that the leaders must "yield to the torrent is they hoped to direct its course." Livingston to Duer, 12 June 1777, R. R. Livingston Collection, NYHS.
4. Jefferson's Notes of Proceedings in the Continental Congress, Boyd, op. cit., 1, 312.
142
to which the Whig leaders exposed themselves, noting "the wrath mani- fested in the King's speech agt them as the mislesders of his American subjects." 1 Although the British no longer exercised authority in the province by the summer of 1775, Admiral Graves wrote home that "there are many in [the violent party] who wish to keep the peace in New York 2 on account of their property." That fall a Tory merchant declared that the Whigs of "prosperity are afraid of these estates, and are 3
coming about fast."
Some patriots prudently left the danger zones at critical moments. When Howe appeared before New York, some Whigs departed hurriedly. Among others, Philip Livingston left the Third Congress rather abruptly. Ac- cording to Jay, he gave no other reason than that he was going to Phil- adelphia. "The ways of some men like Solomons Serpent on a Rock, are 4 past finding out, " Jay concluded disgustedly. After the loss of New York in September, 1776 the conduct of Gouverneur and General Lewis Morris caused bitter complaint. Robert A. Livingston wrote to Edward Rutledge of South Carolina:
Gouverneur thro' what cause God alone knows has deserted in this hour of danger retired to some obscure corner of the Jerseys where he enjoys his jest and his ease while his friends are strugling with every difficulty and danger & blushing while they make those apologies for him which they do not themselves believe.5
1. William Smith, Memoirs, V, 8 January 1776, NYPL.
2. Graves to Stephens, 16 July 1775, Cal, H. O. Papers, p. 394. 3. V. P. Ashfield to Isaac Wilkins, 4 November 1775, ibid., p. 482.
4. Jay to R. R. Livingston, 1 July 1776, Unpublished Corr. of R. R. Livingston, no. 27.
5. Livingston to Edward Rutledge, 10 October 1776, Bancroft Transcripts: Livingston Papers, NYPL.
.
143
Lewis Morrie's behavior provoked comment in Westchester and in the Convention. The Convention had granted him a few days leave to see to his family in Philadelphia upon his express promise to return promptly to his militia regiment. The general not only violated his
1 word, but implied to the Continental delegates that he had come to Philadelphia on Convention business. Since he evaded the Convention's requests to return to the state, that body peremptorily ordered him home. Rutledge gave this account of Morris's presence in Philadelphia:
he left us near three weeks since from some hints which his friends here took the liberty of giving him, and de- clared he would never return until he had conquered it [i.e., fear]. Should he be worse than his word & pay up another Visit, I'll enswer for him that he will not stay here above two Days to rest himself. Indeed I much doubt whether he will be able to call those, Days of rest, for I will immediately make a Party to plague his very heart out. Philadelphia shall not be a place of Safety for him I assure you .-
Having committed themselves to independence, the Whigs prepared themselves for misfortune. Robert R. Livingston explained,
I am amazed at the composure I feel tho' I have every- thing at stake, & the enemy are already in actual possession of one third of my income.2
1. Rutledge to Livingston, 19 October 1776, ibid .; Jour, Prov. Cong .. 1, 566; Morris to Convention, 24 September 1776, Force, op. cit., 5th Ser. III, 211.
2. Livingston to Rutledge, 27 September 1776, Unpublished Corr. R. R. Livingston, no. 95. In a later letter to Rutledge he depicted graphi- cally the dangers of a revolutionary career? "Every day discovers new plotts a regular plan was formed to carry me off, headed by a relation and only defeated by a discovery that very night in which it was to have been cxecuted. Bullets have been shot at night into the very beds of some of our active people & others been fired at & wound'd on the ambush ." Same to same, 10 October 1776, Bancroft Transcripts: Livingston Papers, NYPL.
-
144
The grim prospect of capture by the British induced fearsome thoughts among many. Gouverneur Morris in 1777, describing the impact on the first legislature of the American defeats in the mid-Hudson which in- cluded the loss of Forts Constitution, Montgomery end Clinton, confessed, "We are hellishly frightened but don't say a word of that for we shall 1 get our spirits agein .... N One contemporary attributed the caution of the great landed families to property considerations: "Such extensive property is perhaps too great a stake to be risked in a struggle with 2 a bold invader .... " The fears deriving from these factors exercised & marked influence on the members of the Provincial Congress and mani- fested themselves in the advocacy of a go-slow policy.
Although public opinion in the colony outran the revolutionary leaders, the rigging and ragging of the political leaders did not bring New York any closer to pacification. The exact opposite is true. However ruch John Adams might rail against the timidity of the Yorkers, every important step they took, however halting, was a step further down the road to independence. New York was ma nut in the jaws of a nut- cracker." British military strategy centered upon the capture of the province by an attack from Canada as well as from the sea. With these military threats hanging over the province, it is understandable why New York was not in the van of the revolutionary movement.
1. Morris's underscoring. Morris to R. R. Livingston, 8 October 1777, R. R. Livingston Collection, NYES.
2. "The Real Farmer, " N. Y. J., 1 February 1779.
145
CHAPTER V
CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION OF 1777
The Provincial Congress was the nerve-center of the revolu- tionary movement. Its formation greatly strengthened the Whigs in that it united under central direction the county and local committees who lacked overall authority. Since many of the leading patriots served in the Congress, the Whigs looked to that body for direction. This support in turn enabled the provisional legislature to mobilize the citizenry and their resources. Furthermore, the Whigs now had the means to apply uniform policies throughout the counties. Equally important, the Congress could and did speak in the name of the whole colony, constituting the only significant group with whom the British could negotiate. Lastly, the Provincial Congress replaced the royal administration as the governing authority.
Although the Tories labored mightily to block the calling of a congress, they had toiled in vain even before the news of Lexington reached New York. When the colonial assembly had refused to name representatives to the Second Continental Congress, the moderates and radicals in the city Committee of Sixty had cooperated to push through a call for the election in April of a provincial convention which would meet solely to choose the Continental delegates. The Provincial Con- vention met in New York City April 20, 1775, completed its business and dissolved April 22. £ When the news from New England arrived in
146
had matured.
town the next day, the conditions requisite for summoning a congress 1 On April 28 the City Committee appealed to the counties to elect deputies to represent them in a provincial congress to as- semble in May. The Committee's circular letter justified the call by painting a grim picture:
The distressed and alarming situation of our country, ... threatening to involve this Continent in all the horrors of a civil war, obliges us to call for the united aid and council of the Colony .... 2
When the colony completed the balloting, either ty direct choice or by the local committees, it had deputed 113 men to attend the First Provincial Congress. Not all of these counted themselves Whigs and eventually nineteen joined the loyalists. Although the election circular Lad set May 22 for the opening of the First Congress, a majority of the county delegations did not appear until the next day. Some of the absentees came in later in the session, but Gloucester County did not send a deputation at any time. Individual attendance left much to be desired and the numerous absences impeded the legis- lature's effective operation. From May through July attendance ranged
3 from a low of 42 to a high of 82.
According to the rules of procedure drawn up by the Congress, a majority of the counties constituted a quorum. Moreover, each county
1. Becker, op. cit., pp. 193, 201.
2. Cal, Eist, Mas., I, 4. 3. Becker, op. cit., p. 208.
147
had to have a quorum of its delegation present in order to be able to vote. Definition of the quorum varied from county to county, some requiring a delegation majority, others from one to four men. Since the counties cast unit votes, each deputation had to decide the county's position first before voting. The apportionment of voting strength followed debate and dickering among the counties. The re- sultant compromise gave New York four votes, Albany three and the 1
other counties two each.
Having established a framework within which to labor, the Congress began to tackle the multitudinous problems that led it to exercise the power forfeited by the royal government. £
Although the menters wrestled with many pressing questions, they devoted most time to those relating to military preparations, the Tories, and finances. Plagued by decreasing attendance, the Congress adopted a suggestion of the Continental Congress to transfer its authority to a committee of safety for a stated period. Each county had one vote on this com- mittee except New York which had two. All of the committee's acts were subject to ultimate approval by the Congress. This device per- mitted the Congress to adjourn for the months of July and September 2 but to leave a functioning government in being.
By October the First Congress prepared to end its life and passed resolutions for that purpose. It named November 7, 1775 election day for the choice of representatives to the Second Congress. It
1. Ibid., pp. 207-08; Jour, Proy, Cong., 1, 8.
2. Flick, Hist, N. Y., III, 263.
148
proposed to dissolve November 14, the day its successor convened. Faving defeated a suggestion to use the written ballot, the majority relented and extended the suffrage to nonfreeholders who held lands assessed at 180. Notwithstanding its November 14 deadline, the Con- 1 gress broke up in confusion November 4.
Congress, however, did not assemble on November 14. In fact it did not have a quorum until Lecember 6. Despite this inauspicious beginning, the Whigs congratulated themselves on the new membership of the Congress. The local committees had dropped 39 former delegates
in favor of more ardent patriots, or so they thought. During most of its life the Second Congress remained adjourned, having created a com- mittee of safety to carry on. Thus it fell to the lot of the Committee of Safety to accede in the middle of April, 1776 to Washington's demand for the isolation of the British warships in the harbor. Although some of the radical Whigs grumbled over the slow progress of military preparations, by spring they had less cause to complain as the presence of the Continental Army in New York pressured the Committee of Safety into more vigorous exertions. Before its March adjournment the Con- gress provided for the election of the Third Congress in April and its own dissolution May 14. 2
A further weeding out process occurred in the April, 1776 balloting; ro less than 32 members of the Second Congress yielded their seats to new men. The number of Tories, however, remained
1. See above pp. 68-71; Becker, op. cit., p. 227.
2. Ibid., pp. 232-35. 252.
149
almost constant at eight. All the counties chose deputies and re- vised downward the number necessary to form a delegation quorum. Consequently, the Third Congress did not have to wrestle with the quorum issue. A change in the distribution of the unit votes in- creased New York's share from one-seventh to one-sixth of the total. The new arrangement gave New York eight votes, Albany six, Dutchess five, Suffolk four, Ulster four, Westchester four, Queens four, Orange and Tryon three each, Kings, Richmond, Charlotte and Cumberland two each, and Gloucester one.
Although this Congress had a brief existence, it considered three key problems: suppression of the Tories, instructions to its delegates at the Continental Congress on the question of independence, and the formation of a new governmental structure for the colony. A majority deemed it best to refer the last issue to the people, calling for the election in June of a new Congress with power to draw up a constitution. When General Sir William Howe appeared off New York at the end of June, the Third Congress adjourned June 30, 1776 to re- convene July 2 at White Plains. Since it could not muster a quorum 1 at White Plains, the Third Congress gave way to its successor.
Many of the changes in the personnel of the Fourth Congress were a result of a decrease in the size of the delegations. Whereas the Third Congress had a nominal membership of 136, the Fourth had only 106. Fully 13 of the 30 who did not serve again had represented the
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.