USA > New York > Organization of the Revolutionary movement in New York State, 1775-77 > Part 7
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. William Smith, Memoirs, V, 30 November 1775, NYPL; Sabine, or. cit., pp. 244-47. Smith admitted indirectly that this was the case when his plan failed. Upon learning that the Provincial Congress had repudiatod any separate negotiation, Smith wrote: "for it was resolved that the latter [1.c., Continental Congress] only should declare upon all terms of Reconciliation & thus the former [1 ... , Provincial Congress] became meer executive Instruments." Memoirs, V. 14 December 1775.
2
81
Lord North'o motion. 1 An independent memorial from the colony on this matter after its rejection by the Continental Congress would stir up dissension among the colonies, discredit the Provincial Congress, and open the door to restoration of the governor's authority. Smith's plan owed its inspiration to a letter from delegate John Alsop, conservative and future loyalist which suggested that the - New York Congress instruct its representatives in Philadelphia to
2 introduce pacificatory measures.
The arrival of Alsop's letter presented William Smith with his opportunity. Smith and his brother Thomas, a member of the Provincial Congress, had striven for some time without notable success to persuade John Morin Scott to moderate his views. When
1. Smith's sincerity in advocating another petition by the assembly is a moot point in view of the preceding events. It will be recalled that the administration's supporters had made a great deal of noise over their decent and constitutional appeal to king and Parliament in the spring, practically acting upon the unofficial invitation of the ministry. The refusal of the British, therefore, to even receive the assembly's petitions came as a sharp slap in the face not only to the Tories but also to the conservative and moderate Whigs. what basis did Smith expect a different reaction now? Lord North's resolution did not offer negotiation; it required submission on specific terms. Moreover, by December the whole atmosphere had altered. In August the king had proclaimed the Americans to be in rebellion. The succeeding months had witnessed the rejection of the Olive Branch petition and the acceleration of measures designed to crush the rebellion by arms. Given Smith's acute political perception, it is difficult not to conclude that the petition was secondary to the aim of re-asserting the government'n authority. On the moderate attitude, se. Jay to McDougall, 8 december 1775, McDougall Papers, NYHS.
2. Apparently Smith was already thinking along these lines. Under date of November 25 he recorded counselling Tryon to make public his permission to return to England. Memoirs, V, 25, 28 November 1775; Sabine, op. cit., pp. 242, 243.
82
Scott informed Thomas Smith of the receipt of Alsop's letter, Smith exhorted him to introduce the necessary resolution at the opening Session of the Second Congress. Scott consented conditionally, insisting that Smith prepare the draft. William Smith, however, 1 composed the resolves which Thomas Smith gave to Scott.
Councillor William Smith ran into strong opposition when he broached his plan to Tryon and some of the governor's council on December 1. In his Memoirs he discreetly avoided disclosing the substance of the talk, but the opposition subsided when he placed his formulation on this basis: "Suppose says I it procures a constitutional application to Parliament upon the controverted subjects in a more moderate tone." The "constitutional application," of course, was an assembly petition. Shortly thereafter Smith handed Tryon the. draft of a letter to the people in which the governor intimated his desire of having the
assembly examine Lord North's resolution. Dated December 4, Tryon's
2
letter appeared in the newspapers in modified form. The Tories had launched their trial balloon, and William Smith busily guided it.
On the one hand, William Smith consolidated opinion among the city magistrates for having another meeting of the assembly, while on the other, his brother sounded ont feeling in the Provincial Congress for new instructions to the colony's representatives at
1. Smith, Memoirs, V, 1 December 1775; Sabine, op. cit., p. 243.
2. Smith Memoirs, V, loc. cit .; Sabine, loc. cit .; Const. Gaz., 6 December 1775. Tryon explained to Smith that he could not use the letter as drafted because he feared the other governors might accuse him of being in league with "the People."
83
Philadelphia. Having obtained a favorable response, Thomas Smith arranged a private meeting of ten members of the Congress and his 1 brother at Simmons Tavern on December 7. Before attending the meeting, William Smith submitted the draft instructions to Colonel Edmund Fanning, Tryon's son-in-law, who read and approved then. Most of the discussion at the tavern revolved around the terms of the conciliatory proposals. When some members suggested that McDongall Would never consent to the presently constituted assembly taking up the North resolution, William Smith assured them that the governor would not insist upon it, but he, nevertheless, argued against electing a new assembly. Encouraged by the expressions of support, Thomas Smith declared he would introduce the resolutions in Congress 2 the next day.
Instead of moving for new instructions to the delegates at the Continental Congress, Thomas Smith presented four resolves to the Provincial Congress: (1) that Gage had begun hostilities without waiting for colonial consideration of Lord Forth's motion and that New York had borne arms in self-defense; (2) that New York boasts the "most unshaken loyalty," the "warmest attachment" to the crown and "an ardent desire to maintain the ancient union of the two countries"; (3) that the Congress "conceive it highly necessary and expedient" for the king to have the colony's opinion on the North resolution
1. William Smith, Memoirs, V, 5, 7 December 1775. The ten deputies were Nathaniel Woodhull, John Sloss Hobart and Ezra L'Hommedien of Suffolk, John J. Bleecker, Leonard Gansevoort, Jacob Cuyler, Francis Nicoll, and Robert Van Rensselaer of Albany, John Van Cortlandt of New York, and Gilbert Livingston of Dutchess.
2. Ibid., V, 6, 7 December 1775.
84
" in such a way as his Excellency may conceive to be most constitutional" and that the Congress consider the governor's letter as "proceeding . from an anxious desire for a reestablishment of . . . harmony"; (4) that the Congress desire Tryom to return to his residence in the city and will guarantee his safety. 1 Since these resolves were preliminaries to the instructions, they were presumably intended to create favorable sentiment among the members for conciliation, to lay the basis for conveking the assembly should the Continental Congress reject conciliation, and to reassure the governor as to the attitude of the Provincial Congress.
Thomas Smith erred seriously when he neglected to assure 2 himself of Scott's support before introducing his resolves. The introductory motion precipitated an acrimonious debate, in the course of which Scott teamed with McDougall and Hobart to oppose Saith. Scott severely castigated Governor Tryon for accusing the people in his Docomber 4 letter of withholding "their allegiance from their sovereign and their obedience" fron Parliament. 7 The trio also
3 criticized the assembly and demanded its dissolution. It is likely that the house would have defeated Smith's motion, but the delegates
1. Becker, op. cit., pp. 239-10; Jour, Prov. Cong., I, 210-11.
2. Although Scott was a key figure in the Congress and had possession of a copy of William Smith'e draft, Thomas had not invited him to the consultation at Simmons Tavern. William noted noncomittally that Thomas had not consulted Scott on the introductory motion. Smith, Memoirs, V, 8, 13 December 1775; Sabine, op. cit., pp. 252, 253, 256.
3. Smith, Memoirs, V, 4, 8, 13, 31 December 1775; Sabine, op. cit., pp. 252, 253, 256.
65
from Albany, Dutchess and Ulster took refuge in the rules of procedure
1
which enabled them to postpone further debate for five days.
Thomas Smith sought to repair the damage the next day, December 9, by presenting a motion to appoint a committee to draft a letter to the representatives at Philadelphia instructing them on measures to be taken "in this alarming state of our affairs," The general nature of the motion won unanimous approval and the deputies referred it to a committee of Scott, Hobart, Smith, Gansevoort, Gilbert Livingston and Abraham Brasher.
When Congress re-opened the debate on Smith's resolves on December 13, Hobart proposed an amendment to Smith'e motion which rebuked the governor and placed the responsibility for the crisis on the ministry's shoulders. The amendment contained five resolves: (1) that none of the people have renounced their allegiance to the king or desire independence; (2) that the colonies have taken up arms to defend their rights and privileges against "the arbitrary and tyrannical encroachments of His Majesty's Ministers"; (3) that though "this colony" had recourse to committees and Congress to secure redress of their grievances, the people do not desire to oppose the legislature, but insist upon their right to contimed representation therein; (4) that the government's failure to convene the assembly this season has caused uneasiness among the people; (5) that Congress thinks there is no danger of "insult or interruption" to either of the
1. Rale 10 stated: "That no question shall be determined on the day that it is agitated if three counties shall request that it be deferred to the next day." Jour, Prov. Cong., 1, 206, 211.
86
branches of the legislature, and that it would be extremely agreeable to the people to have the assembly meet to consider the "present 1
unhappy controversy." The debate on Hobart's amendment produced heated exchanges. Smith remarked that the first part of the fifth resolution was similar to his own motion for guaranteeing the governor's : safety. Whereupon Hobart answered that Congress might arrest Tryon without breach of faith. Since Colden could legally replace the governor, the legislature could proceed without "interruption." The speaker declared "impudently" that he had drawn the clause in that
form to trap the governor. 2 The vote on the amendment overwhelmed Smith, for only one county, Kings, voted against it and one, Orange,
divided. The house then held the amendment for further consideration by voting on it paragraph by paragraph. When the voting was finished, Smith had von his major point: it would be extremely agreeable to the people to have the assembly sit. On all the other resolves Smith suffered a sharp reverse, and the volleys of invective had so exacerbated tempers that the ultimate fate of the motion remained in doubt.
Indeed the following day's session demonstrated how the struggle over the amendment had fused the radicals, moderates and most of the conservatives into a determined opposition. This temporarily
1. Becker, op. cit., p. 240; Jour, Prov. Cong., I, 212, 217. The committee appointed December 9 to draft the letter to Philadelphia, never reported.
2. William Smith, Memoirs, V, 13 December 1775; Sabine, 'op. cit., p. 253. Scott dissociated himself from Hobart's "trap the governor" remarka.
87
united group deprived Smith of his partial victory in the previous day's debate. Reflecting this new vigor, Isaac Roosevelt, a conser- vativo from New York City, offered further amendments to the first two resolutions which broadened their scope in harsh tones to include Parliament. His motion charged that the sole sources of the supposed present turbulense are the "oppressive acts" of Parliament, "devised for enslaving His Majesty's leige subjects." and the "hostile attempts of the Ministry to carry those acts into arecution. " Roosevelt'o amendment carried unanimously, for all counties voted for it. When Scott and MeDougall finished obliterating and trans- posing words in the third resolution, they barely left the door ajar for another session of the assembly. They declared that the people do not wish "to disuse ... the ordinary course of legislation, but ... highly esteem their right of being represented in General Assembly." This, too, carried unanimously. Hobart moved that the whole fourth paragraph de expunged; his motion carried with no county dissenting. The fifth resolve met the same fate, although its demise spanned two
motions. Haring of Orange, seconded by Sands of New York, proposed to delete the latter half of the fifth which welcomed a meeting of the legislature. When put to a vote, only Kings opposed it, but Roosevelt recorded his dissent from the New York City ballot. Sands then spoke for the disposal of the rump and only Kings voted against it.
1
1. Becker, op. cit., pp. 240-41; Jour, Prov. Cong., I, 217-18. Although William Smith states that his brother quitted Congress in disgust on the fourteenth, the Journal does not record him present either the afternoon of December 13 or at any time on December 14.
88
Having administered a stinging admonition to the governor and the Tories, the house proceeded to other business.
The dinner intermission that day must have encompassed further conversation on the debates because when Congress reconvened in the afternoon, the moderates re-opened the subject. Scott took the floor to present an additional proposition:
that nothing of a salutary nature can be expected from the separate declaration of the sense of this Colony on the Resolution of the House of Commons on the 20th February last; and that as the motion whereon the scheme was grounded was confessedly framed to disunite the Colonies, it would be highly dangerous and totally inconsistent with the glorious plan of American Union, should this Colony express their separate sense on the above-mentioned supposed conciliatory proposal .... 1
All the county votes were affirmative, except Orange which divided. McDougall concluded the business by moving
that this Colony is fully and effectually represented in the Continental Congress for the purpose of expressing the sense of its inhabitants on any overtures for a reconciliation, and that the Continental Congress has fully and dispassion- Ately expressed the sense of the inhabitants of this Colony on the above- mentioned Resolution ....
All the counties approved this resolution, but Roosevelt and Cuyler registered their disapproval. When the resolutions passed their third reading on December 15, the conservatives cast their last negative votes. Van Zandt, Roosevelt and Beekman of New York, Van Derbilt and Covenhoven of Kings, and Cuyler of Albany voted against the fourth and fifth resolutions and opposed the publication of any
1. Becker, op. cit., p. 241; Jour, Prov. Cong., I, 219. Roosevelt, Cuyler and Hay entered their dissents to their counties' rotes.
1
89
1
of them.
William Smith attributed the defeat of his proposals to the machinations of Scott, McDougall and Hobart who, seeing "a spirit of moderation would be inauspicious to their private aims, of gaining Beats in the new Assembly, and" who, "by working upon the general jealousies of the main Body, and the ambitions of some members who had ends similar to their own, " defeated the resolves. In his
2 private notes Smith ascribed the defeat to the arrival of news from Philadelphia and Canada on the evening of December 8. From the former cama the Continental Congress's acerbic response to the royal proclamation on rebellion which denied that the Americans were rebels, but opposed the "exercise of unconstitutional powers, to which neither the Crown 3 nor Parliament were ever entitled." Reports from Canada spoke of
further military successes after the fall of Montreal. 4
Although the news of these events may have stiffened the opposition, it arrived in New York after intemperate argument had occurred in Congress.
There is, however, another relevant factor in this affair which Smith glossed over in his letter to Tryon. £ He referred to his brother's resolutions as Wincautiously framed," and a comparison of
1. Ibid., and p. 220. See the comments of McDougall to Jay, 14, 18 December 1775, Jay Papers, CUL and Jay to McDougall, 8 December 1775, McDougall Papers, NYHS.
2. Smith to Tryon, 17 December 1775, NICD, VIII, 653.
3. Quoted in Burnett, Continental Congress, p. 117.
4. Smith, Memoirs, V, 13 December 1775; Sabine, op. cit., p. 253.
90
them with Tryon's letter to the people will demonstrate the truth of this under-statement. Although the governor bad expressed the wish to have the people's opinion of the North resolution and to have peace, he had concluded his letter with the implication that the Whigs had indulged in treason. In this context Thomas Smith's propositions possibly evoked the image of the dangling halter in the minds of soma Whigs.
Thomas Smith phrased his motion in more than conciliatory language. His first resolution ignored the North policies of 1773-75 as the cause of the American unrest, and sought to create the impression that Gage's expedition was the origin of the troubles. If this vere correct, what would Smith say about those who have advocated the formation of committees and congresses before April, 1775? Would the government treat them as restless and turbulent characters? The second resolution conceded that the conduct of some "would countenance a charge of withholding their allegiance from their Sovereign, " although it added, "it must be attributed to an apprehension that all protection was withdrawn from them." Nevertheless, it did
lend color to Tryon's accusation of treason. The third resolution praised the governor's initiative as indicating both his affection for the people and his "anxious desire for a reestablishment of that harmony that has been so long interrupted by the misrepresentations
Did this last phrase and artifices of evil and designing mon." 1
to the Delancey faction or to the moderates and radicals? As phrased, these proposals seemed to bear the aspect of an invitation to
1. Ibid., p. 252; Jour, Prov, Cong., I, 210-11.
91
approve Tryon's judgment of the Whigs. Furthermore, since Scott and Hobart had either read or heard the gist of the draft instructions, these unrelated resolves must hary aronsed suspicions as to Thomas and William Smith's role. It is not surprising that "Congrass was 1 thrown into great beata" and that the plan was rejected.
Although the radical and moderate Whigs might well have congratulated themselves upon their resounding victory on the floor of Congress, William Smith was not yet ready to concede the battle. Since the resolutions provided at least indirectly for a meeting of the assembly, Smith sounseled Governor Tryon to act upon the hint. Taking account of the congressional diatribes against the prorogued legislature, William Smith advocated the election of a new assembly:
The dissolution will enable men of temper, to testify their disapprobation of the present violence, under a popular and safe clore form a confederacy to correct and nodermine the tyranny erected over the colony, turn the eyes of the multitude to a power that is constitutional, and favor futurs overtures for the restoration of harmony. 2
When Tryon put the issue to the council, a majority favored a
dissolution. 3 Although the governor tried to conceal his termination of the legislature, not even informing his council, he failed to
1. Smith, Memoirs, V, 13 December 1775; Sabine, op. cit., p. 253.
2. Smith to Tryon, 17 December 1775, quoted in Becker, op. cit., p. 241; Smith, Memoirs, V, 17 December 1775.
3. Ibid., Y, 23, 26 December 1775. Delancey, Cruger and Horsmanden opposed dissolution, at least until the legal life of the assembly had expired. In the face of this opposition the governor declared he would use his own discretion as to the precise date of dissolution.
92
deceive the Whigs. 1
They took prompt steps to wage an energetic 2 campaign to ensure the election of a Whig assembly.
By means of handbills and the newspapers the Whig propagandist warned the people of the consequences of a corrupt legislature and of Tory guile to divide the colony. "A Citizen, " urging vigilance by the people, maintained that the administration had prepared the election as a trap. Avoid the snares, elect independent men of
integrity, he concluded.
"A Poor Man" wrote that a corrupt
assembly would make dangerous concessions to the North ministry, and that the people therefore should unite to choose "good, steady friends" to their liberties. "Philo-Demos" asked the citizens to examine carefully the candidates' principles and warned that secret 3 enemies were worse than avowed opponents.
On another front the Committee of Safety warned the county committees not to be "taken unaware & surprized into an Election without. Time to Consult & prepare for it, " to hold caucuses of "leading friends to liberty" to choose candidates of "zeal, spirit and integrity."
1. Smith records that Tryon had not informed the council of his action on December 30. The secrecy would have hampered the organization of an effective campaign by the Whigs in the rural districts and a small vote would have enhanced the odds of a Tory victory. Ibid., V 31 December 1775.
2. Becker, op. cit., p. 242 states the election aroused "little interest, " but the Whig activity belies such an interpretation.
3. To the Freeholders and Freemen of New York by "A Citizen, " 29 December 1775, To the Citizens of New York by "A Poor Man, " 30 December 1775. To the Electors of New York by "Publicola, " 6 January 1776, Broadsides. NYPL; "Monitor, " no. 10, NYJ., 11 January 1776; "Philo-Demos, " Const. Gaz., 6 January 1776; Schuyler to McDougall, 11 Jamary 1776, McDougall to Schuyler, 17 January 1776, McDougall Papers, NYHS; Hamilton to Jay. 31 December 1775, Jay Papers, CUL.
93
Z
and to spare no "care & pains" to elect them. Desiring to leave 88 little to chance as possible, the Committee of Safety in a second circular to the counties emphasized the necessity of prompt attendance at the meeting of the Provincial Congress February 1, so that Congress 2
could "ave a corrupt Assembly."
The election resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Whigs, who won twenty-four seats to four for the Tories. 3
In the capital, 4 the Tories had not oven put up a slate. Whigs won the two seats in
1. Jour, Prov. Cong., 1, 236; Commitice of Safety to Chairman, Tryon County Committee, 2 January 1776, Schuyler Papers, NYPL; Force, OR. cit., 4th Ser., IV, 1020-21.
2. Becker, op. cit., p. 242.
3. Thirteen of the Whigs were members of the current Provincial Congress. The previous assembly had thirty-one seats, but the newspapers report the cames of only twenty-eight victors. There is no report from
Cumberland and only one name from Orange. There is no mention of Charlotte and Gloucester Counties.
The four Tories are Oliver Delancey of Westchester, Seaman and Billop of Richmond and John Alsop of New York. The Whigs nominated the latter as a conciliatory gesture.
The Whigs are: Philip Livingston, Jay, and McDougall of New York; John Leffertse and Couwenhoven of Kings; Blackwell and Samuel Townsend of Queens; N. Woodhull and William Smith of Suffolk; John Thomas, Jr. and Lewis Morris of Westchestor; Pierre Van Cortlandt of Manor of Cortlandt; P. R. Livingston of Manor of Livingston; R. R. Livingston, Jr. and Dirck Brinckerhoff of Dutchess; Abraham Yates, Jr. and Robert Van Rensselaer of Albany; Abraham Ten Broeck of Manor of Rensselaer; Christopher Yates of Borough of Schenectady; Paris and Moore of Tryon; George Clinton and Charles DeWitt of Ulster; John Haring of Orange. N.Y.P., 22 February 1776.
The account of the Whigs' victory in New York City triumphantly concludes: "What think ye of our New York Tories now!" Const, Gaz., 3 February 1776.
4. Becker, op. cit., p. 242. The Whigs had called in the newspapers for a meeting of the freemen and freeholders on January 17 to choose a ticket. It was this meeting which nominated the victors. Const. Gaz., 17 January 1776; Smith, Memoirs, V, 2 and 3 February 1776.
94
Queens, but the Jersey troops probably had been cowed by the Tories 1 when they disarmed several hundred in late January . The dampening of Tory ardor in Queens did not affect Richmond where the two leading Tories retained their assembly seats. Similarly, in the Borough of Westchester in the southern part of that county, a Delancey gained the victory, but Whigs captured the two other seats for the county. Although the Whigs won an impressive victory, moderates and conservatives would compose the new assembly and the Tories might away the Whigs if 2 they pursued a policy of indirection.
Having committed themselves to the election of the new assembly, the Tories had to make the difficult decision whether they would permit the legislature to convene. Certainly the Tory defeat at the polls had not induced the governor to prorogue the assembly. What gave Tryon and his council pause was not the election but the state of public opinion. Early in January New York papers carried the text of the king's October speech to Parliament in which he declared his intention of ending the rebellion quickly by the "most decisive
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.