USA > New York > Dutchess County > The revolution and the common man : farm tenants and artisans in New York politics, 1777-1788 > Part 14
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
In the end, each debtor had to make the best arrangement he could with his creditors, for on April 5, 1787, the Assembly finally defeated any attempt at relief by a 25-24 vote. 20 If political credit accrued to anyone from this pro-
tracted wrangle, it probably went to the opponents of a stronger Federal government. Melancton Smith, writing
25"Copy of [the merchants' ] Petition, 1785,' N.Y. S. L. , 18 endorsed, 'NB. This petition was strenuously opposed in the Joint Committee by A. Y. the Chairman a Senator from Al- bany"; see in confirmation, "Mercator," New York Daily Ad- vertiser, Apr. 22, 1786.
240 Hamilton to Hazard, Apr. 24, 1786, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. John C. Hamilton ( New York, 1851), I, 430-431.
25For this history, see New York Daily Advertiser, July 13, 1786, and Feb. 28, 1787.
20 See New York Daily Advertiser, Apr. 11, 1787. For reference to merchant petitions, particularly frequent when the three-year grace period expired in 1786, see ibid,, Feb. 15 and Mar. 15, 1786; Feb. 1, 1787.
205
against the proposed United States Constitution as 'A Plebe- 1an" in 1788, appealed to the merchants indebted to England. 27 One of them, at least, was strongly Anti-Federalist. Peter 7. Curtenius, merchant, ironmaker, old Son of Liberty and New York State Auditor, penned one of the most vitriolic letters of the none-too-polite ratification debate. Writing to John Mckesson, Curtenius said he had been high in public favor in 1775, when he could put 65000 into government secur- ities and on his credit purchase £20,000 of stores for the expedition against Canada. Now he had "grown poor" : "I am down now & they like other dogs it seems are determined to keep me down. " Egbert Benson of Dutchess County, "this Bell weather of the Federalists," was the worst. Curtenius had compounded with his British creditors without help from the state. "If I had been a Livingston or a Schuyler," he con- cluded, 'I suppose he [Benson] would have advocated my Cause, but my Crime is that I am a friend of the Governor. .28
Federalist strategists needed some other issue than debts to England wherewith to win over the radical merchant - leaders.
Banks and Paper Money
Debts to England, although an intensely-felt issue, failed to break down the barrier separating the radical from the conservative merchant leaders. The question of access
27 "A Plebeian," An Address to the People of the State of New-York (New York, 1788), 6-7.
28Peter Curtenius to John Mckesson, Var. 15, 1788, Mckesson Papers.
206
to capital provided the needed catalyst. Within a year (at the most) of the re-occupation of New York City, the mer- chants of the community were solidly aligned behind the Bank of New York. With equal unanimity, although not with quite the vehemence often supposed, they protested the emission of paper money. In these struggles a unity among the merchants was forged which after 1785 was smoothly and naturally adap- ted to the quest for stronger national government.
A united approach io questions of capital-formation had to be created: it did not exist in November, 1783. In the 1782 session of the state Assembly, the entire city dele- gation ( composed, of course, of refugees; voted for a "stay law" on debts contracted before September 1, 1776. On a second bill, allowing debtors to persons within the British lines to discharge their obligations by paying one-fortieth the sum due into the state treasury, the delegation split. 29 In 1724, the mercantile community divided as to whether a new bank should accept land, or specie only, as security for loans. In the same year the General Committee of Mechanics petitioned for the emission of state bills of credit. 30 In 1786, two members of the city delegation voted for paper
money, and two actually voted to make it legal tender. "
31
These are facts which do not fit the picture of a united
29Assembly Journal (Fishkill, 1782), 60, 74-76, 77-78, 38-89.
Assembly Journal (New York, 1784), 74.
31New York Daily Advertiser, Mar. 25 and Apr. 5, 1730; Assembly Journal (New York, 1786) for Feb. 11-Mar. 4.
207
"urban creditor" interest in opposition to an equally homo- geneous "agrarian debtor" party. Few groups were more in- debted than the less-affluent mechanics. It took time for the issue to clarify and for men to become certain where their interests lay.
Everyone, to begin with, complained about the shortage of money. The question at issue was not whether the mone- tary supply should be increased, but rather how and by whom. The President, Director and Stockholders of the Bank of Now York, for example, petitioned the New Yor's legislature that "a Scarcity of Specie for a long time to come may be expected. This defect must be supplied by an artificial Medium. " True, the petition conceded, in colonial times the common remedy had been government bills of credit: but after the exper- Ience of the war, bank paper was now more likely to command confidence. " This allegedly "hard-money" institution ra- pidly expanded its own notes in circulation, from $22, 310 In June 30, 1784 (just after it began business ) to $84, 300 Less than a year later. 33
The city mechanics opposed bank notes, leaning instead toward what one newspaper called "our old, though rather dishonorable friend, Mr. paper currency": 34 government bills of credit. The mechanics petitioned for bills of credit in.
32petition, Oct. 8, 1764, Hamilton Papers, Columbia U. 33 Papers of the Bank of New York, Bank of New York, Box 1.
34 New York Journal, Feb. 16, 1780.
208
the spring of 1784, as mentioned above, and several mechanics defended their position in the press. Government paper seemed safer than the paper of any kind of private bank. 35 "Where, " asked "Mechanic, " "ought credit to be placed in a republican government? I will venture to answer, in government only. . Had government energy enough to establish their own
credit by a paper currency every man who had security to offer, might get what money they might have occasion for, on a moderate interest, and the farmer and manufacturer might proceed to improvements as usual." Private banks, the writer continued, tended to drive a hard bargain.
What comes next? Why your lands are sold, and you be- come tenants at will -- there is no redress from the Assembly; you will find a majority of stockholders there, who will probably pass a law, that none but freeholders of so much property shall have : rete: then lay heavy taxes on every necessary of life, no: on coaches, equipages, luxuries, superfluities, etc. but as in England, on beer, cyder, soap, candles, etc .; you will perhaps have to pay a tenth or more of the produce 2 the farm you rent, to pay a swarm of Clergy. 13
Ther., as the decade progressed, radical merchants lined up behind the private Bank of New York, mechanic support was conspicuous by its absence.
There is good evidence that many of the radical mer- chants were supporting the Bank of New York, Tory directors, Alexander Hamilton and all, by as early as the late spring of 1784. In February, when a rival land bank was proposed,
35Ibid., Mar. 13, 1784.
30"Mechanic, " New York Journal, Mar. 25, 1784.
209
Isaac Sears sponsored it in the Assembly. 37 Shortly there- after, the three principal movers in the scheme for a bank based on specie -- Gouverneur Morris, Hamilton, and the inves- tors Jeremiah Wadsworth and John B. Church->joined forces, and the Bank of New Yor's took shape. Hamilton at once set to work on the radical merchants. "I thought it necessary, ' he wrote his brother-in-law Church, "not only with a view to your project, but for the sake of the commercial interests of the state to start an opposition to the [land bank ] scheme; and took occasion to point out its absurdity and in- convenience to some of the most intelligent Merchants; who presently saw the matte. in a proper light and began to take measures to defeat the plan, " including, Hamilton concluded, a petition against granting an exclusive charter to the land bank. 39 This petition against an exclusive bank, received by the New York legislature two days after Hamilton wrote his letter (Verch 12, 1784), was signed by a group who called themselves 'Subscribers to an Intended Bank" and included the old merchant Son of Liberty, Jacobus Van Zandt. 40
37 See Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1957), 009.
38The scheme crystallized slowly. On Nov. 22, 1783, Gouverneur Morris wrote Robert Morris: "I have consulted Hamilton on the Subject of the Bank who thinks the Proposi- tion may be eligible but must consider"; as late as Apr. o, 1784, Wadsworth wrote Gouverneur Morris that he and Church were "yet undetermined respecting a Bank" .( Gouverneur Morris Papers, Columbia U.).
39Hamilton to Church, Var. 10, 1734, Hamilton Papers, Columbia U.
40 Assembly Journal (New York, 1784;, 04.
210
If the radical merchants were not, as this petition sug- sests, supporters of the Bank of New York in 1784, they were unquestionably so in 1785. On Feb. 10, 1785, a petition to Incorporate the Bank of New York was signed by John Lamb, Isaac Sears, Melancton Smith, Marinus fillett, William Mal- com, Paschal N. Smith (Sears' partner) and James M. Hughes!"- It has been pointed out that of twenty-one Anti-Federalist leaders in 1788-1789, only four were among the 227 original stockholders of the Bank of New York. 42 The petitions of 1784 and 1785, however, are proof conclusive that the radical merchants were (at least by the latter year) supporters, not first ledger-book of customers, for the years 1787-1783, 1- cludes the following 'radicals": Jonn Broome, Peter Curten- lus, David Gelston, Nathaniel Hazard, Isaac Ledyard ( "Men- tor"), Brockholst Livingston, Henry Rutgers, Paschal Smith, [Melancton] Smith and Wyckoff, Marinus Tillett, and Wynant Van Zandt. 43 Here at least, radical and conservative leaders stood on common ground.
fot so the mechanics. While the entire mercantile body of the city sought in the spring of 1785 for incorporation of the Bank of New York, the mechanics sought to incorporate +1Papers of the Bank of New York, Bank of New York, 30x 9.
#2Alfred Touns, "The Democratic Republican Movement, 1 210 n.
Papers of the Bank of New York, Bank of New York, Box 11.
211
the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen. It has not been recognized that this body was to lend money, and that incorporation was essential precisely so that it could do 80. The lending of money was one of the five purposes for the body listed in its suggested by-laws. " Originally the mechanics asked permission for a fund of -3000 -- a figure not incommensurable with the 275,000 of stock possessed at this
The legislature whittled time by the Bank of New York. 45 the sum to L1500 before sending the bill to the Council of Revision, where it was lost. Despite this defeat, the 40 General Society resolved at its annual meeting of January, 1736, to lend sums not less than 6100, giving preference to nembars, on three-fold security in New York City real es- tate. 47 In December, 1737, the minimum loan was lowered to 50.48 Thus the mechanics strove to provide for their own. That they did so with some success is suggested by the fact that no prominent mechanics, such as Robert Boyd or William Goforth, appear on the petition for the Incorporation of the Bank of New York of February, 1785, or among the customers of the Bank in 1767-1788.
44 New York Packet, Feb. 17, 1785.
">Papers of the Bank of New York, Bank of New York, Box 1.
-Charles Tillinghast to Hugh Hughes, Feb. 26, 1786, amb Papers.
47Earl and Congdon, Annals, 11.
teTypewritten minutes of the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen, library of the Society, Dec. 14, 1787.
212
Radical and conservative merchants, drawn together in support of the Bank of New York, collaborated also in responding to the demand by up-country farmers 49 and me- chanics for government bills of credit. Debts were debts, whether owed to an ex-Tory or to an erstwhile Son of Liber- ty. Samuel Broome and Jeremiah Platt, hard-pressed by British creditors, struggled to collect L1113 owed them in Columbia, Tryon and Westchester Counties. 50 The Columbia County agent of another old merchant Son of Liberty, Wynant Van Zandt, wrote him despairingly: 'I have done all that I possibly could ty threaths [sic] swearing & cursing [. ] I would prosecute them, which is the only thing now to do. ">1 There was no reason for Broomes or Van Candte to view none- tary inflation differently from Constables or Duers. In the city Chamber of Commerce, memorials on paper money were Loved by William Quer but also by William Malcom. ' 52
Because of its prominence in the politics of the late nineteenth century, the paper money question has often been considered the central issue dividing radicals from conser- vatives in the Critical Period. It was nothing of the kind.
49Robert R. Livingston, however, who as a large land- lord was a substantial creditor, opposed paper money ( 'Opin - lon against issuing bills of credit," March 1786, Robert R. Livingston Papers).
50Jacob Le Roy & Sons to Alexander Hamilton, Mar. 10 [1787], Hamilton Papers, Columbia 3.
51?eter Ludlow to Wynant Van Zandt, Nov. 20, 1788, Wynant Van Zandt Papers.
>Minutes of the New Yor's Chamber of Commerce, photo- stat, N. Y.P.L., Nov. 2, 1784 and Feb. 13, 1725.
213
New York's paper emission of 1790 was approved by the con- servative organ, the New York Daily Advertiser, and accepted by the Bank of New York. 53 The allegedly extremist victory was, in fact, a mild inflationary measure rapidly acquiesced in by all groups in the community, just as in other cities. 54
What all creditors feared in paper money was not infla- tion as such. Indeed a larger money supply, by lubricating the whole economy, actually zade debt-collection easier: after the New York bill passed, James Beekman began to call in his debts again. 55
The danger in paper money, as mercan- Cile creditors saw it, was that it might be made a legal
tender. This was what roused the New York Chamber of Com- merce. "Hitherto, " their memorial told the state Assembly, they had Adelay'd in addressing themselves to your Honorable Body, hoping that the Experiment if made would at least be in such a manner as not to involve the ruin of one Class of the Community for the benefit of another. "50 Their protest was successful. Contrary to an opinion supported by such
53., New York Daily Advertiser, Jan. 27 end June 17, 1787.
54For reference to the Charleston merchants' support of South Carolina bills of credit, see New York Journal, May 25, 1786.
For a similar re-interpretation of paper money before the Revolution, see Bernard Bailyn, "Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Eighteenth-Century America, ' American Historical Review, LXVII (1962), 341 n., 342.
55James Beekman to John Relph, Oct. 4, 1780, Beekman Mercantile Papers, III, 1001.
56Minutes of the New York Chamber of Commerce, photo- stat, N. Y. P. L.
-
214
authorities as Charles A. Beard and Robert A. East, 57 New York's emission was not regarded as a victory for legal tender. Rather the bill was, in the words of E. James Ferguson, a "compromise, " a clause to make the bills legal tender in all cases just losing in the Assembly in February, 1786, by a one-vote margin. 58 The city's "radical' newspaper, the New York Journal, joined in ap- plauding that the "struggle . . to make our money a tender in all cases* had been defeated. . 59 In the final version of the law, the new bills of credit were legal tender only for debts contracted before the bill's passage.
The New York delegation was not unanimous in response to paper money. William Duer led the floor fight against the law, proposing amendment after amendment; it appears that his prin- cipal concern (unlike that of the merchants) was that the pressure of public creditors for stronger Federal government might be weakened. John Stagg, Robert Boyd, William Malcom and Robert Troup voted against the bill in its final form, but Evert Bancker and William Goforth voted for it. Earlier, Bancker and William Denning had voted to make the bills tender in all cases. Bancker, while appealing to general principles, half-confessed in his correspondence that his large indebtedness to Margaret
57 Board, An Economic Interpretation, 269 ( "the legal tender bill which the paper money party pushed through in 1786"); East, Business Enterprise, 265 n.
58, Ferguson, Power of the Purse, 231-232; New York Daily Advertiser, Mar. 25, 1786. For the text, see Laws of New York, 9th Session, Ch. 40. See also Main, Antifederalista, 50.
59 New York Journal, Aug. 24, 1786.
215
Farmer had Influenced him. Whether Goforth's affirmative vote can be interpreted as a continuation of earlier mechanic sentiment for bills of credit, 18 unclear.
Acting together in matters of banking and paper money, radical and conservative merchants moved together into agi- tation for the Federalist program. In May 1785, a Chamber of Commerce committee to reply to Boston's Mercantile Com- mittee of Commerce regarding "the restrictions laid on our Trade by the British and other Nations, and also the very unfavorable State of our Commerce at large, " was moved by William Duer; it was chaired by Isaac Sears; acceptance of its report was moved by Melancton Saith. 51 When these three could work in harness, discrimination toward Tory merchants must have seemed pointless. By the end of 1787, half of the merchants who attended the Chamber's last meeting under British rule (Hay o, 1783) were again members in good stand- ing. 22 Mercantile unity was well-nigh complete.
The Anti-Federalist Merchants
Well-nigh complete, yet not altogether so: for the leaders of the city Anti-Federalists were merchants, too. Velancton Smith, his connection with Federalist moves in
ECBancker to Richard Varica, Aug. 24, 1785; same to Margaret Farmer, Var. 27, 1786; Adrian Bancker to Evert Sancker, May 18, 1786 (Miscellaneous Bancker Papers, N. - Y.H. 5. ).
Elinutes of the New York Chamber of Commerce, photo- stat, N.Y.P.L., Feb. 15, May lo and May 23, 1785.
22Compare the lists in Stevens, Colonial Records of the Chamber of Commerce, 295, 300.
216
1785 ( just mentioned) notwithstanding, had led the protest against the Rutgers v. Waddington decision in 1784, 03 and Would lead the state Anti-Federalists at the Poughkeepsie ratifying convention. David Gelston and Jonathan Lawrence were prominent Anti-Federalist merchants. Marinus willett and John Lamb, although in the 1780's they held government jobs, were in private life also merchants, and leading oppo- nents of the United States Constitution.
The notoriety of Lamb and Willett has led to the false conclusion that the bulk of the old Sons of Liberty leader- ship was Anti-Federalist. This is not the case. Merchant Sons of Liberty such as John Groome, Thomas Hazard and Jacobus Tan Candt appear on petition after petition asking a Federal Impost; indeed Broome, ns President of the Chamber of Commerce from 1795 through 1788, was a principal figure in the Feder- alist agitation. The leading mechanics in the Sons of Liber- cy also became Federalists. In the great parade celebrating the Constitution's ratification, Daniel Cungcomb, Robert Boyd and William Goforth marched in the van of their respec- tive trades. C4 Among the outstanding pre-Revolutionary radi- cals, only Peter Curtenius Joined Willett and Lamb in Anti- Federalism.
What motivated the small group of dissident merchants who opposed the Constitution? An hypothesis often suggested
23See New York Packet, Nov. 4, 1784, for the protest of the committee which Smith headed. Its grave and judicial tone suggests Smith as draftsman.
"4See the list of trades, which includes many indivi- dual marchers, New Yor's Packet, Aug. 5, 1788.
217
is that the merchant Federalists were typically importers from England, while Anti-Federalist merchants dealt with the West Indies and other non-European markets. It does seem to be the case that not one Anti-Federalist merchant in New Yor's was an importer from England and Europe. Isaac Sears, who did import British goods, 65 died in 1786 before declaring his sympathies. John and Samuel Broome, Thomas and Nathaniel Hazard, Jacobus and Viner Van Zandt, all sup- porters of the Federalists, described themselves in 1784 as "employed in the business of importing goods from Great Bri- tain and the Continent of Europe. "00 William Malcom, who went over to the Federalists in 1737 (as previously described), was an importer of Scotch goods. 67 Merchant Anti-Federalists like Smith and Gelston, In contrast, seem to have been prin- cipally involved in bringing country produce to the city and sending it on to the West Indies. Smith dealt with fellow Anti-Federalists Gilbert Livingston and Peter Tappen, who manared a store in Poughkeepsie. Gelston offered beer, 08 pork, hogs' lard, butter, cheese and smoked beef from the New York countryside, and sugar, coffee and spirits brought
back from the West Indies on the return voyage. =9 When in
05See his advertisement, Independent Gazette, Var. +, 1794.
DOPetition dated Feb. 13, 1784, Senate Legislative Papers, XI, Box 2, N. Y. S. L.
07m. E. V. Smith, The City of New York, oo.
08Gilbert Livingston Papers, N.Y.P.L. ; 'Merchandise Imported by Melancton Smith . from St. Thomas, 20th October, 1790," Misc. Mss. Dutchess County, N. - Y. H. S.
o. Advertisement, New York Daily Advertiser, Apr. 9, 1787.
218
the fall of 1788 Marinus Willett left his position as city Sheriff and took up trade again, he dealt in the exchange of foodstuffs between "country traders" and the West Indies. 70
Another and probably more fundamental factor was at work in mercantile Anti-Federalism, however. Melancton Smith, David Gelston, Jonathan Lawrence were all newcomers to the city in 1783. All hailed from Long Island, as incidentally, did another city Anti-Federalist, the lawyer Samuel Jones. Here again the names of Lamb and Willett are misleading. For if we connect the Anti-Federalism of Lamb, Willett and Curtenius with the fact that these three alone of the old Sons of Liberty received prominent Jobs in the state govern- ment, the startling fact emerges that the city's Anti- Federalist leadership was altogether composed of either state office-holders or newcomers to the city. Like the Anti-Federalists of Dutchess County, the urban opponents of the Constitution were largely 'new men. " With the exception of Melancton Smith, '+ they played no part in the meetings of the Chamber of Commerce. It would have been natural for such intruders in the city's economic life to find themselves shut out from the most secure and lucrative branch of trade, importing from Europe, and to capitalize on their rural con- acts by taking up business with the West Indies.
This way of understanding New York City Anti-Federalism
70Public announcement, New York Journal, Oct. 10, 1788. 71Smith was proposed as a member of the Chamber on Aug. 3, 1784, and admitted on Sept. 7.
219
would help to explain the strong anti-monopolistic ideology of the group. New York's rebel leader of the seventeenth century, Jacob Leisler, had seen both a social outsider and a foe of economic monopolies. 72 Just so Melancton Smith, the principal spokesman of urban Anti-Federalism in the state, wrote under the name "Plebeian, " and at the Pough- keepsle ratifying convention introduced an amendment forbid- ding monopolies. 73
Further research will be needed to demonstrate whether the Anti-Federalist merchants were Indeed, as here suggested, newcomers excluded from the "Certain Small proffitt" of the European trade, '" and so impelled toward speculative ventures in both commerce and politics. It is clear that these mer- chants were a very small minority in the mercantile class of New Yor's City.
Conclusion
The attempt of British creditors to collect pre-war debts from refugee Thig merchants was a keenly-felt issue in the city mercantile community. It did not, however, lead to important political results, as the rural Anti-Federalists declined to help these urban merchants, while Federalists
22see Jerome Reich, Leisler's Rebellion (Chicago, 1953), 92; Lawrence H. Leder, Robert Livingston and the Politics of Colonial New York ( Chapel Hill, 19o1), 59.
?3For the amendment, see Kckessor. Papers, Box 3. 7 Robert Livingston, Jr., to James Duane, Yay 3, 1762, Duane Papers.
220
sought to keep all business groups dissatisfied until their grievances could be merged in support of a stronger Federal government.
It was around the question of access to capital that a new political alignment began to crystalize. Merchants known before the war for their radicalism, such as the Broomes and Van Zandts, were no later than early 1785 strong supporters of the "Tory" Bank of New York. In response to the threat, not so much of paper money, but of paper money as a legal ten- der, all groups of New York City merchants also cooperated, working through the Chamber of Commerce. Thus years before the drafting of the Constitution, New York's mercantile com- munity was working in harmony for measures of common interest. The handful of New York City merchants who later became Anti-Federalists were either office-holders in the Clinton administration (Lamb and Willett), or newcomers to the city both socially and economically outside of the structure of power. Because of their rural contacts and because access to the preferred European import business was difficult, these merchants specialized in the exchange of foodstuffs between rural New York and the West Indies. But it is sug- sested that they became Anti-Federalists not because they were West Indian merchants, but because they were social and economic outsiders.
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.