LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 107 393 A Conservation Resour Lie-Free® Type I Ph 8.5, Buffered \ ELECTION OF DELEGATES FROM NEW YORK TO THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS BY CARL BECKER REPRINTED FROM THE Jmmtatt gtetorwal §wiew VOL. IX NO. i OCTOBER, 1903 /3* [Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. IX., No. i, Oct., 1903.] ' ELECTION OF DELEGATES FROM NEW YORK TO THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS The history of political parties in New York during the Revo- lution is the history of the differentiation of the popular party into revolutionist and loyalist. It is true that from the first there was the germ of a loyalist party in the so-called court faction which in the early part of the eighteenth century played an important part in provincial politics. But after 1733 the important fact was the growth of the popular faction under the lead of the Livingston family until in the early period of the Stamp Act troubles the court faction all but disappeared. For the moment the province found unity in a somewhat undiscriminating anti-British protest. But this unity was momentary only : from 1765 to 1776 the central fact was the gradual differentiation of the anti-British party into various factions, out of which were ultimately formed the irreconcilable parties of loyalist and revolutionist. As early as the Stamp Act riots in November, 1765, the landed class began to draw away from the popular movement, estranged by the mob violence which threatened its property, and by the in- creasing importance of the unfranchised classes which threatened its political supremacy. In 1770 the merchants also separated from the popular party. The commercial disadvantage of absolute non-intercourse had driven them to advocate a policy of partial non-intercourse — non-intercourse, namely, in respect to those commodities only which were subject to parliamentary taxation. With the arrival of the East India Company's tea-ships in 1 773— 1774, the popular party was reorganized under the name of the Sons of Liberty ; and the merchants and landed classes in a sense drew together and formed what may be called the conservative party. By 1774 the separation of radicals and conservatives was measurably complete. The latter, who wished to direct resistance along lines of compromise and conciliation, were in favor of partial non-intercourse and negotiation; the former, who were not unwill- ing to carry resistance to the very edge of revolution, were in favor of absolute non-intercourse and mob violence. Such were the main issues round which centered the struggle for the delegates to the Continental Congress. The key to the 66 6y C Becker situation is to be found in the effort of the conservatives. While the progress of events from 1774 to 1776 in America and in Eng- land tended steadily to define the issue more and more precisely in terms of revolution and loyalism, the conservatives attempted throughout to steer a clear course between absolute resistance on the one hand and absolute submission on the other. They at- tempted to do this by gaining control of the popular organization and dictating through. this organization the election of delegates to the first Continental Congress, and by opposing the effort of the radical organization to control through a provincial convention the election of delegates to the second Continental Congress. The significance of the period consists in the practical failure of the conservative programme, and in the ultimate disintegration of the conservative faction. In a previous paper ' conservative activity in respect to the election of delegates to the first Continental Congress was considered. It is the purpose of this paper to show in some de- tail how the struggle for delegates to the second Continental Congress operated to complete the disintegration of the conservative faction. While the conservatives were nominally successful in electing their delegates to the first Continental Congress, the action of that body was of immense importance in the party transformations of the immediate future — was, in fact, the first step in the disintegration of the conservative faction. Its immense importance lay in the fact that in sending delegates to a general congress the two factions in New York virtually agreed to throw the burden of forming a policy of resistance upon an authority outside the province ; consciously or unconsciously, they thereby surrendered the privilege of having a policy of their own. The decision of Congress, while it carried no legal sanction with it, would necessarily exercise a profound in- fluence, especially if it adopted the policy of one faction and rejected that of the other. This is almost precisely what the first Conti- nental Congress did ; it adopted a policy of absolute non-intercourse and drew up an Association to that effect, recommending that com- mittees be appointed in every province, county, and town to see that it was signed as generally and enforced as rigorously as possi- ble." The radicals then had only to continue as they had begun. To the conservatives, on the other hand, two paths were open — either to use the decision of Congress as an excuse for changing their attitude, or to put themselves in opposition to the united de- cision of the colonies. 3 It was manifestly impossible to follow both 1 Political Science Quarterly, March, 1903. 2 4 American Archives, I. 913. 3 Cf. Thomas Young to John Lamb, Oct. 4, 1774, MS. Papers of Tohn Lamb, I774-'775- The John Lamb Papers are in the New York Historical Society Library. P. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 68 paths ; composed, as the conservative party was, of incipient revolu- tionists and of incipient loyalists, it was impossible to follow either as a part_\-. Practically, the result of the first Continental Congress .was to split tlie conservative faction in two; a part followed one path, a part followed the other. The voice of all the colonies, speaking out, as it were, in sharp rebuke against the policy whii h the conservatives in New York had advocated, came like an ultima- tum both to those who were ready lor forcible resistance and to those who were prepared to remain faithful to the home government when no other alternative offered. This result was realized with measurable completeness in the events leading up to the election of delegates to the second Conti- nental Congress. Meanwhile, the- question immediately in hand was whether the action of the first Continental Congress should be approved or not, and, if approved, how its recommendations re- specting the Association could be most effectively carried out. In the city this led to the election of a new committee — the Com- mittee of Sixty, sometimes called the Committee of Inspection. On November 7 the Fifty-< >ne resolved that the freemen and freeholders should be requested to assemble on November IS at the usual places of election and choose eight persons in each ward to act as a committee of inspi ction for the enforcement ol the Asso- ciation. 1 In passing this resolution without a division the conserva- tive committee may appear to have accepted the verdict ot Con- gress without reservation. On closer inspection, however, it will be found that the committee was principally intent on making the best of a bad situation. In its recommendation for the election ot com- mittees Congress had suggested that the suffrage be limited to free- holders and freemen. There was some consolation lor the Fifty- ( )ne in the fact that this limitation, if observed in New York, might place the control of the Association there in conservative hands. It is to be observed further that the resolution by which the con- servative committee called for the election of committees of inspec- tion made no provision for the dissolution of the Fifty-One; and it is more than likely that the nu\v committees were intended to serve merely as ward committees under the supervision of the Fifty-One as a central committee. If the conservatives, therefore, took the first step in response to the recommendations ot Congress, it was only that they still hoped to direct where they were no longer able to control ; an initial willingness to act upon the suggestion ol Con- gress might save, it was hoped, the life and influence of the con- servative organization. 1 4 ./«, r;', ,n: trchivt , 1 . 328, 529. 69 C. Becker It was hardly to be expected, perhaps, that the radicals would fail to see the tendency of such action. On Sunday, November 13, the Mechanics Committee, which now represented the radicals, pub- lished a broadside calling for a special meeting of that body at 4 o'clock and a general mass-meeting of all radicals at 5 o'clock on the following day, for the purpose of discussing the questions raised by the resolutions of the Fifty-One. 1 It is not known precisely what was done at either of these meetings, but it is obvious that the proposals of the conservative committee were found unsatisfactory. The Fifty-One on the evening of the same day addressed to the Mechanics Committee a letter requesting a conference on the day following, in order that a " mode that shall be agreeable to their fellow citizens in general " might be arranged. 2 This conference resulted in the adoption of a plan widely different from the original proposition of the conservatives. Instead of ward committees, there was to be a general committee of inspection of not more than sev- enty nor less than sixty members. It was to be elected by the free- men and freeholders, not in ward elections, but at the city hall, under the supervision of the vestrymen. Finally, it was understood that the election of the new committee should be followed by the immediate dissolution of the Fifty-One. 3 If this arrangement is to be regarded as a compromise, it was a curiously one-sided one. There were two points which it was of serious importance for the conservatives, if they wished to remain conservative, to hold to — the limitation of the suffrage, and the continued existence of the Fifty-One. Virtually, both points were given up. It is true the suffrage was not technically extended, but the method of election was so changed that the suffrage ceased to be a matter of any importance : to say that the committee should be elected by the freemen and freeholders, at the city hall, under the supervision of the vestrymen, was only crudely to conceal the fact that the decisive method of election by ballot was to be re- placed by the indecisive method of election in general mass-meeting. The second point was given up without reservation, and this was, after all, the matter of vital importance. Its importance consisted in the fact that in losing the Fifty-One the conservatives were 1 Broadsides, I. (Broadsides used in this paper are from the collection in the New York Historical Society Library.) 2 The letter was dated 6 o'clock, November 14, and addressed to Daniel Dunscomb, chairman of the Mechanics Committee. 4 American Archives, I. 329. 3 4 American Archives, I. 330. In announcing this change the Fifty-One explained that whereas there was apprehended certain inconvenience from the first plan, and "this committee having taken the same into further consideration, and having consulted many of their fellow citizens, and also conferred with the Committee of Mechanics," etc. Delegates to Second Continental Ccuigress 70 losing their independent organization. The new committee, nomi- nated by both factions, could not represent the conservatives as the Fifty-One had represented them. On the. contrary, it would stand quite as much (more, indeed, as the sequel proved) lor radicalism as for conservatism. There was, consequently, no more inherent reason for the dissolution of the old conservative Committee ne ceased to exist. The election of the Committee of Sixty and the dissolution of the Committee of Fifty-one was the logical result of the fust Conti- nental Congress. It prep. tied the way for the disappearance of the conservatives as a part}'. Since the colonies as a whole had taken a stand, it was out of the question for a local party to direct the resistance to the home government on lines laid down by itself. It was necessary to take the stand that all of the colonie's had taken, or to stand against them : and to stand against them was very nearly the same, in the indiscriminating popular mind, as to stand with the home government. Increasingly the question which confronted each part}' was whether it would stand with Congress and the colonies or against Congress ami with England. This question now- confronted the conservatives in New York. As a party, there was no longer any place for them ; as individuals, would they prefer ultimately to become loyalists or revolutionists? Some were ready for the latter ; some could do no less than the former. The result was that just as the ok] Committee of Fifty-' )ne had from the first practically had a large majority for conservative measures because the- moderates were then prepared to work with the extreme con- servative wing of that committee, so the new Committee of Sixty now had practically a large majority for radical measures because the same moderates were now prepared to work with the extreme 1 Ibid. *lbid ; cm,.,,, I etter Book, II . Vew Yo> I Hist. Soe. Coll., Fund Series, X. 372; Kivington C , November 24, 1774; New \ork Mercury, November 28, 1774. "i C. Becker radical wing of this committee. 1 Of the original Fifty-One thirty members 2 found places on the Committee of Sixty. With one or two exceptions, 3 these thirty were taken from the extreme radical wing of the Fifty-One and from those moderate conservatives who ultimately preferred to become revolutionists rather than loyalists. Those of the Fifty-One who found no place on the Sixty repre- sented, for the most part, that phase of conservative thought which pointed away from revolution and towards loyalism. The thirty members of the Sixty who had not been members of the Fifty-One 4 were men who represented, with some exceptions, radicalism in thought and in action. In the counties, it has already been pointed out, scarcely any part had been taken in the agitation previous to the movement for the first Continental Congress. Even that movement had resulted there in little positive effort, and in no positive organization of those elements which in New York coalesced into the conservative fac- tion : only the radicals, and they in some counties only, had made a beginning. Consequently, when Congress sent into the counties 5 its recommendation for an Association, there was not there, as in the city, two definitely organized factions ; there was, for the most part, only opinion, prejudice, and some conviction, mostly in solu- tion. Vet the result of the first Continental Congress was essen- tially the same in the counties as in the city. As there was no longer any place for the conservative faction in the city, so it was too late for such a faction in the counties ; in the counties, as in the city, it was increasingly a question of standing with the Congress or with the home government. The same process of separation into loyal- ists and revolutionists was begun in both places. The difference was that in the counties there was no conservative faction to be dis- integrated, and there was less of a radical organization to work 'Smith to Schuyler, November 22, 1774, Lossing, Schuyler, I. 2SS ; Colden to Dartmouth, December 7, 1774, Letter-Book. II., New York Hist. Sue. Coll., Fund Series, X. 372. -'Isaac Low, Philip Livingston, James I >uane, John Alsop, John Jay, P. V. B. Livingston, Isaac Scars. David Johnson, Charles Nicholl, Alexander AlacDougall, Thomas Randall, Leonard Lispenard, Edward Laight, William Walton, lohn Broom, Richard Hallett, Charles Shaw, Nicholas Hoffman, Abram Walton. Peter Van Schaack, Henry Remsen, Peter Curtenius, Abram Brasher, Abram P. I.ott, Abram Duryee, Joseph Bull, Francis Lewis, John De Lancey, John B. Moore, Gilbert H. Ludlow. 3 Peter Van Schaack and Isaac Low were the notable exceptions. ' John Lasher, John Roome, Joseph Totten, Samuel Jones, Frederick lay, William W. Ludlow, George Janeway, Rudolphus Ritzema, Lindlay Murray, Lancaster Burling, Thomas I vers, Hurcules Mulligan, John Anthony, Francis Barrett, Victor Bicker, John White, Theodore Anthony, William Goforth, Win. Denning, Isaac Roosevelt, Jacob Van Voorhees, Jeremiah Piatt, William I' stick, Comfort Sands, Robert Benson, William W. Gilbert, John Berrien, Nicholas Roosevelt, Edward Fleeming, Lawrence Embree. 5 The recommendation came to the counties through the Fifty-One. 4 American Archives, I. 328, 329. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 72 with. The process of separation was slower, the balance of power was not always with the radicals. Not until the force of arms began to replace free discussion did the disappearing opposition of the loyalists leave a free field for revolutionist organization. In the counties, as in the city, the first question to be answered was embodied in the recommendations of Congress. While the Association was doubtless circulated in all of the counties, the re- sult is unknown or was indecisive ' except in the three that acted upon it favorably — Albany, Suffolk, and Ulster. The Albany committee, which had now become a permanent organization, rati- fied the action of Congress on December 10. So decidedly was the committee in favor of the Association that the New York delegates were requested to explain why they voted to permit the exportation of rice from South Carolina." The Suffolk County committee met November 1 5 at the county hall, approved the action of Con- gress, and referred the enforcement of the Association to the town committees.'' In Ulster committees were appointed, agreeably to the resolution of Congress, in the towns of Kingston, 1 New Wind- sor,"' Hanover, 1 '' Showangnuk, 7 and Walkill. 8 Mention is made of a county committee, but whether this refers to the Kingston com- mittee, which may very likely have acted as a county committee, or to a separately organized general county committee, is unknown. No organized opposition appears to have existed. The remaining counties, so far as is known, did not individually place themselves on record as being either in favor of or in oppo- sition to the policy of Congress. Some feebly intimated their con- fidence in the Assembly ; others waited, perhaps, for that body to take the initiative. While the Assembly, which was elected in 17(19, cannot be considered as in any sense representative even of the conservative counties at this time, its action is the only record we have of the sentiments of those counties that made no definite reply to the recommendations of Congress." Whether representa- '/-.'. g., Dutchess, 4 American Archives, I. 11(14. '" Queens there appears to have been about equal division oi opinion, /A/,/, 1027, 1035, 1191 ; Onderdonck, Docu- ments and Letters, 14, 17, 20, 21 ; Mew York Mercury, January 9, 16, 1775; Riving- ton's Gazetteer, [anuary 5, 1775. In Orange about half refused to sign, Calendar of Historical Manuscripts, I. 5 11. ' \ Imerican Archives, I. 1097, 1098. '< Ibid., 1257, 1258 '/In,/., I 1100; II. 298; New York Mercury, April 17, 1775. \| American Archives, II. 1.51, 1 3 J . " Ibid., I. 1 mi. ' /bid., I. 1183, 1230. s Ibid , I. 1 2" 1. 9 The Assembly was petitioned (<• censure I 'ongre - and t" negotiate with the King for redress of grievam Cf. T<> the Freemen, Freeholders, etc., January 19, 1775, Broadsides, I. 7?, C. Becker tive or not, the action of the Assembly in the winter of 1775 has this significance : much of the opinion, prejudice, and conviction which in the counties was still in solution after the first Continental Congress remained so for the time being because it was known that the colony's legal representatives were about to take a stand on the precise question which the extra-legal representatives of all the colonies had made the vital question — the question of standing with the colonies or with the home government. In February the Assembly took its stand ; by a vote of almost two to one it was decided not to thank the delegates to the first Continental Congress and not to send any delegates to the second. 1 On the other hand, it attempted to take matters into its own hand ; in March it sent a petition to the King, a memorial to the Lords, and a remonstrance to the Commons. 2 The action of the Assembly, which pleased the English government ;i and helped to crystallize sentiment in New York, was an effort, and all but the last one, to stand in the place and to do the work of the old conservative Committee of Fifty- One. But it was too late to accomplish anything along these lines ; the only result of the Assembly's action was still further to dis- integrate the very party whose policy it was thus tardily attempting to make effective. The first test had now been made. New York and three other counties had answered in favor of Congress ; the rest had given no more definite answer than might be read into the action of the Assembly. The most important test was still to come — the election of delegates to the second Continental Congress. The decision of the Assembly had no sooner cleared the way than the matter was taken up by the radicals in New York through their Committee of Sixty. On February 27 Van Brugh Livingston moved that the committee should take into consideration " the ways and means of causing delegates to be elected to meet the delegates of the other colonies ... in general Congress." 4 On March 1, when the question was again taken up, the committee, concluding that it had no power to elect the delegates itself, decided to refer the matter to the freeholders and freemen. A notice was accordingly published summoning the freemen and freeholders to meet at the Exchange on March 6 to " signify their sense of the best method 1 4 American Archives, I. 1289, 1290; Golden, Letter-Book, II., New York Hist. Soc. Coll., Fund Series, X. 3S0 ; Deane Papers, V., New York Hist. Soc. Co!!., 1S90, PP- 5.!' s . 539- ! 4 American Archives, I. 313. 3 Ibid., II. 27, 28, 29, 122, 123, 252. ■Broadsides, I. The motion was carried with only one dissenting vote, that of Samuel Jones. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 74 of choosing such delegates, and whether they will appoint .1 certain number of persons to meet such deputies as the counties may elect for that purpose, to join with them in appointing nut of their body delegates for the next Congress." ' Whether consciously worded or not, the fact is that the tun purposes expressed in this document are somewhat inconsistent with each other. If the freemen and freeholders were to be asked to decide how they preferred to elect their delegates to Congress, it is not clear why they should be asked whether they would take part in a provincial convention ; it is not clear why the committee should express a desire to refer the ques- tion of method in the election of delegates to the freemen and free- holders, and then, before there could be any decision of that point, thrust their own definite plan so intrusively in their faces. In truth it would be quite superfluous for the freemen and freeholders to consider the first question (the question of the best method) if they were expected in any case to consider the second question (the question of a particular method); and, under the circumstances, a refusal to adopt the committee's plan would be very nearly equiva- lent to a refusal to have any part in the second Continental Congress. It is clear, therefore, not only that the radicals were in favor of sending delegates to Congress, but also that they wanted those delegates to be chosen by a provincial convention composed of deputies from all the counties in the colony. Such a method ( >1 choosing delegates would almost necessarily diminish the relative influence of New York city in the Congress; it is, consequently, necessary to understand why the radicals in the city were in favor of a provincial convention. The answer to this question is to be found in the fact tluit under existing conditions, in spite of the radical control of the Sixty, the old method of electing delegates would most likely result in send- ing the same kind of a moderately conservative delegation to the second Continental Congress that had been sent to the first ; the relative influence of New York city was to be reduced in order that the influence of the colony as a whole might be less conservative. A brief review of the conditions which faced the radicals will make 'Broadsides, I.; Rivhigton's Gazetteer, March 9, 1 775 ; A/'eiv York Mercury, March 6, 1775; 4 American ' ,11. 4, A provincial convention had been urged in connection with the electi I delegates to the first Continental Congress, by the in New York cit) in their resolutions of July 6, 1774 { .\'< ■■■ York Mercury, July 11, 1774 , and again in their resolutions of July 20, 1774 (Neto Y01 Mercury, July 25, 1774). In connection with the second Continental Congress the earlie I appears t<> havi ne from Suffolk County. A county meeting on February 23, 1775. resolved that ii the Assei 1 ised to appoint delegates, "the Committee of Corres- I lence for . . . New York be desired . . in that case to call a provincial conven tion for that purpose." 4 American Archives, I. 1-57. j*, C. Becker this clear. The delegates to the first Continental Congress had been elected by counties. The apathy in the rural counties had resulted in sending a delegation from the colony in which the city delegates (five in number) exercised a determinative influence, not only because of their numbers, but also because of their personal ability and influence. That influence was, if not decisively conser- vative, at least only moderately radical. The problem which con- fronted the radicals was how to secure a delegation to the second Continental Congress which would exercise a more radical influence. If the old method of election was adopted, this could be done in one of two ways — either by electing a new and radical delegation from the city or by electing sufficiently large and radical delegations from the counties to outvote and, what was more important, to outweigh in influence the old delegation from the city. Neither plan was practicable. The old city delegates were men of the high- est standing and of wide influence. They had not seriously opposed the action of the first Continental Congress, nor had they refused to support the Association. With two exceptions ' they represented at its best that part of the conservative faction which was ultimately prepared to join the revolutionists. But they had not as yet gone very far in that direction. Without being sufficiently radical to suit the Committee of Sixty, they were not sufficiently conservative to be in any sense out of the race. To defeat these men was probably impossible ; to attempt to do so was, in any case, impracticable. On the other hand, it was unwise to depend on the election of large radical delegations from the counties ; the action of the counties on the Association had been all but decisive on that point. The alter- native was a new method of election which would enable the Sixty at once to support the old city delegates and to neutralize their influence. A provincial convention would enable the Sixty to do this, because the city delegation to a convention might properly be made sufficiently large to leave the old delegates in a minority ; whereas it would be out of the question to send so large a delega- tion from the city directly to the Congress. In the same way the convention could easily form a delegation for the province as a whole in which the old delegates should find a place, but in which they could no longer exercise a determinative influence ; and this co.uld most probably be done equally well whether the rural coun- ties took an active part in the convention or not. 2 1 Isaac Low and John Alsop. 2 The motives of the radicals are sufficiently well revealed in the broadsides which were circulated in defense of the convention. In answer to the objection that a conven- tion will deprive the city of "their old delegates," it is stated that New York cannot Delegates to Second Conliriental Congi'ess 70 The conservative element, in the committee and out of it. divined the purposes of the Sixty and made an ineffectual attempt to defeat them. A meeting was held at Montagnie's on March 3, presided over by John Thurman. The proposals of the Sixty were disapproved of, first, because there was not time enough before March 6 to set- tle so important .1 question ; second, because the method ot taking the vote " by collecting the people together " was inexpedient, since it permitted oi no distinction between freeholders and freemen, who had a right to vote, and "such as were collected on purpose to make a show of numbers " ; third, because a provincial convention tended directly to the introduction of a provincial congress. It was accord- ingly suggested that the whole matter be postponed until the reply of the English government to the Assembly's proposals should have been received; if nothing could be effected in this way, then let the poll be opened in the usual places for the election of delegates tn a ci invention by freemen and freeholders only. The conservatives declared they were not necessarily opposed to Congress, or even to a 1 1 invention, but to the haste with which the matter was being pushed through. 1 The protest was scarcely heeded. An answer- ing broadside appeared the next day," and in the evening some radi- cals met and resolved to support the proposals of the committee.' 1 In Monday, March <">, the day fixed by the committee for the meeting, preparations began early. The vote was to be taken at noon. In mid-forenoon the radicals began to assemble at the lib- erty-pole, and by eleven o'clock they were on the way to the Ex- change, carrying a banner on one side of which was the inscription, presume to el& I delegates fur the whole colony, and, on the uther hand, it is impropi to crowd the Congress with delegates from each county. In another broadside oi the e date, March 14. the author, who signs himself " A Friend to the Congress," says that " the necessity of this mode of choosing the delegates for the colony arises from the counties having taken off nse at the conduct of this city in choosing the last delegates without consulting the counties. . . . The tale that your late delegates are excluded, is a lucre trick ; for there is tie- highest probability that they will be chosen by the deputies oi the counties as they are in the . . . nomination ol the committee." Broadsides, I. Cl 1 Xmerican Ar, hives, II. [39. 1 Ibid., 48, to -' I be author, who calls himself " A Tory," makes the following points : I 1 ) The ■1 e oi thi city 1 an be tal n -I mday as well as any other time. (2) A convention is the plan used by the colonies of New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, ami North Carolina. ! 1 1 ability thai the Assembly will appoinl delegates. " And as to the dan- oftheii being influenced by the measure, I really can see no great harm in a Repri sentative being influenced b) his constituents, on the contrary they ought to be." I 1) As for waiting advice from England, "may ;h well wail foi the conversion ol the Pope as the arrival of the Packet." (5) "That whomever says the committee have presi ribed rule, for the counties, lie, under a mistake, they mean only . . . to propose it to the counties and consult with them on thi 1 ion ' fo the Learned and Loquacious ;in, March 4, 1775. Broadsides, I. '4 American Archives, II. 48. 77 C. Becker "George III Rex, and the liberties of America," and on the other, " The union of the Colonies, and the measures of Congress." About the same time the opposite party, strengthened, as was alleged, by royal officials, civil and military, began a similar procession from Montagnie's. When the processions met at the Exchange, a gen- eral melee was avoided with difficulty. Order having been restored, the chairman of the Sixty announced the questions upon which the vote was to be taken. The questions, as now announced, were not formulated as they had been by the committee in its handbill of March i — indeed they were not the same questions at all. The first question announced by the chairman was whether deputies should be sent to a provincial convention ; the second, whether the people then present would authorize the committee to nominate eleven deputies to a provincial convention. On the first question the conservatives demanded a poll in order that the matter might be decided by freeholders and freemen according to the recommend- ation of Congress. This was refused, and the sense of the meeting was taken en masse. According to the radical account, both ques- tions were carried by a very great majority. The conservatives, on the other hand, claimed that it was impossible to say whether the questions were carried or lost : consequently, even granting the propriety of the method of voting, it could not rightly be considered either that the county was in favor of a provincial convention, or, if it was. that any power of nomination had been conferred upon the committee. 1 Whether carried or not (probably a majority of those pres- ent were in favor of the committee), the framing of the questions was such as to make it impossible to settle them on their merits. The wording of the questions shows indeed that the Sixty had taken a full step in advance since issuing the first of March hand- bill. The committee had called the freeholders and freemen to- gether to ask them what they considered the best method of elect- ing delegates to Congress, and whether they were in favor of a provincial convention ; now that they, together with others, were assembled, the committee really asked, not the freeholders and free- men, but the inhabitants generally, whether they would send dele- gates to a provincial convention, and whether they would authorize the committee to nominate eleven delegates to that convention. On the first of March two inconsistent questions had been presented to- gether in such a way that the real issue had been whether New 1 The official account of this meeting is in Broadsides, I. Two other more detailed accounts have been preserved, one by a radical sympathizer, the other by a conservative. The only points in which they disagree have been noted in the text. 4 American Archives, II. 48, 49. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 78 York County should join in a provincial convention or not. On the sixth of March two questions somewhat different, but equally inconsistent with each other, were presented together in such a way that the real issue was whether the committee's method oi sending delegates to a provincial convention should be adopted or n<>t. The first alternative had been a convention or no Congress ; within six days the alternative had become eleven deputies nominated by the committee or no congress. A little closer consideration of the two questions presented by the Sixty on March will make this all but obvious. A negative vote on the first question was practically equivalent to opposing the second Continental Congress. Undoubtedly there were main- men in favor of Congress but opposed to the convention as a method of electing delegates to the Congress — men who, nevertheless, il the convention was legitimately determined upon, were willing to send delegates to it rather than not take part in the Congress at all. These men wanted a chance to vote against the convention and in favor of some other method. Yet the man who voted negatively on the first question said not, "I am not in favor of the convention as a method of choosing delegates," but, " 1 am not willing that New York County should join the other counties in sending dele- gates to the convention, and consequently to the Congress" : such .1 vote, practically, would not have the effect of replacing the con- vention as a method by some other method, but merely of keeping New York County out of the movement altogether. More incis- ively than ever and not altogether fairly, there was presented to the conservatives the alternative of supporting the convention or of seeming to refuse to support Congress — by a shrewd sort of polit- ical legerdemain it had come about that supporting or opposing the radical committee was apparently identical with the alternative of standing with the colonies or with the home government. The second question was equally treacherous. The convention once determined upon, many men not in favor of it in the first instance, but willing if delegates were to be sent to it that the committee should nominate them, were not willing that the ticket should con- sist of eleven members. Such men could not vote against nominat- ing a ticket of eleven delegates without voting against allowing the committee to nominate the ticket at all. With questions presented in this fashion, those of the old con- servative faction who were' facing away from loyalism were likely to prefer to support the radical committee rather than give the appear- ance of refusing to support Congress: the}' thereby took a long step in the direction of revolution. Those of the old con 1 r\ itive 79 C. Becker faction who were facing away from revolution doubtless preferred to give the appearance of opposing Congress rather than place that body unreservedly in radical hands : they thereby took a long step in the direction of loyalism. The meeting on March 6 was thus another and an important stage in the disintegration of the old con- servative party. Those wdio voted in favor of sending deputies to the convention, and in favor of permitting the committee to nomi- nate a ticket of eleven members, whatever their motives may have been for so voting, found themselves in the company of men who voted in the same way precisely for the purpose of imparting to Congress a radical and revolutionary impetus. On the other hand, those who voted, for whatever reason, not to join with the counties in a provincial convention, and against the nomination of delegates by the committee, found themselves in the company of men who voted in the same way because they considered conventions and congresses illegal and treasonable.' The Sixty proceeded at once to nominate a ticket. Without any serious opposition apparently, the old delegates — Isaac Low, Philip Livingston, James Duane, John Alsop, and John Jay — were named, together with six others — Leonard Lispenard, Abram Walton, Francis Lewis, Isaac Roosevelt, Alexander MacDougall, and Abram Brasher.- Of the new men, none was conservative like Duane or Low, none, perhaps, moderately judicious like Jay, none timid like Alsop. Three of them at least — MacDougall, Lewis, Roosevelt — were men who would speak and act effectively and unhesitatingly for radical measures. If the Sixty could get this ticket elected, it might well assume that without opposing the old delegates it had succeeded in neutralizing their influence. The conservatives still had a fighting chance, perhaps, if they chose to use it : they might secede from the Sixty, as the radicals had done from the Fifty-One, and nominate a ticket of their own. But the radicals left the Fifty-One only after there was no more to be gained by remaining in it, and the conservatives had still some- thing to gain by retaining a representation on the Sixty — the limi- tation of the suffrage to freeholders and freemen. All that was ■The conservative party which marched from Montagnie's was charged with num- bering among its supporters officers of the army and navy, customs officers, and loyalist members ol the Assembly. 4 American Archives, II. 48. Among the broadsides pub- lished in opposition to the committee was one signed a " Citizen of New York." in which the main arguments were : (i) That the only legal representatives of the colony, the Assembly, had refused to appoint delegates; (2) that, whatever reason there may have been for the first Congress, there was no reason for a second ; (3) that the convention would lead to the introduction of a provincial congress, which in turn would usurp the functions of the Assembly. Ibid., 44. - Uroadsides, I. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 80 accomplished, consequently, in respect to a separate organization was an informal and vain effort at the election to vote for the five old delegates without voting for the six new ones. In respect to the limitation of the franchise, however, the conservative leaders were able to attain their end. March 8, in committee meeting John Jay moved that the election should Lie held on March 15 in the wards, under the supervision of the vestrymen and subcommittees of the Sixty, and that the votes of freeholders and freemen only should be received. 1 The radicals felt the mure safe in granting this, perhaps, since the)' would be able, now that a popular meeting had decided the initial question of the expediency of sending dele- gates at all, to force upon the voters the alternative of voting for the committee's ticket as a whole, or not at all. On March 15 the election was held. Eight hundred and twenty-five freemen and freeholders were in favor of sending deputies, and voted for the committee's ticket ; one hundred and sixty-three voted negatively on both points. Many, on the other hand, offered to vote tor the old delegates only. They were refused. The ticket of eleven members nominated by the Sixty was accordingly declared duly elected." Thus having succeeded in getting the support of the city for its plan, the committee issued .1 circular to the counties on the follow- ing day. 3 The question was referred to the counties in much the same way as it had been referred to the city. The counties were asked, first, to consider the advisability of a provincial convention ; second, to send delegates to a convention which was to meet (the Sixty took the liberty of fixing the day) at New York, April 20. Practically it was quite as useless for any individual county to con- sider the first question as it was impossible for the conservatives in the city to get an opportunity of doing so : the practical question before each county was whether it would send delegates to the convention, which, it appeared, was to meet in any case ; or whether it would take no part in the convention. A refusal on the part of any county to send deputies to the convention would have no other practical effect than to leave that count)' without influence or voice in the second Continental Congress. In each county, therefore, the fight, where there was a fight, was virtually between those who were in favor of the second Congress and those who were not — between those who were going the way of revolution and those who were going the way of loyalism. There- was no place in the . • 1 American trchives, II. i ;7. [38, 1 ;'> : New York Mercury, March 20, 1775. The vi 1 '1 by wards in the Mercury. 'Broadsides, I.; 4 American Arc/iiv, , II. 138, 8 1 C. Becker counties any more than in the city for those who, without being loyalists, were not in favor of Congress, or for those who, without being hostile to Congress, were opposed to a provincial convention. The result, for the moment, was a rather marked increase in radical activity. Eight counties, aside from New York, sent deputies to the convention, though in three of them there was strong opposi- tion ; one, at least, definitely refused to be represented ; three, so far as is known, took no action. In Albany County it was not primarily in response to the letter of the Sixty that delegates were elected. After the Albany committee had resolved, in December, 1774, to support the first Continental Congress, a new and more carefully organized county committee was established, which began to meet in January. 1 It was composed of deputies from the three wards of the city and from the precincts of the county. March 1, 1775, at a meeting of this committee the chairman produced a letter from the Albany members of the Assembly, which recom- mended that measures be taken for the election of delegates to Philadelphia. It was therefore resolved to request the subcommit- tees of the different districts in the county to assemble at Albany on March 21, "with full power to elect delegates." 2 Meanwhile the letter from New York reached Albany and gave a new direc- tion to the activity of the committee. It is not known how this letter reached the various districts, but that it did reach them is evident from the fact that when the general committee met on March 21 all of the deputies had been authorized to elect delegates either to the Congress at Philadelphia or to the convention at New- York.'' All of the committee except Henry Bogart were found to 1 This new committee is commonly known as the Committee of Safety. The manu- script minutes of this committee, in two volumes, are preserved in the state library at Albany. The full title is " Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee for the City and County of Albany, begun January 24, 1775." The two volumes cover the period from 1775 to 1778. Except at the beginning, the correspondence of the committee is omitted. At the beginning every page is numbered ; near the close of the first volume the practice was introduced of numbering each leal only ; most of the second volume is not paged at all. For the privilege of examining these minutes I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. J. F. A. Van Laer, keeper of the manuscripts at the New York State Library. For convenience the citation will be " Minutes of the Albany Committee." 2 " A letter being produced by the chairman from Colls : Schuyler, Ten Broeck, and Livingston, members of the general Assembly, recommending the committee to appoint delegates to the intended Congress to be held at Philadelphia. . . . It was unanimously resolved that letters be wrote to the committee of the different districts of this county requesting their meeting at the House of Richard Cartwright the 21 st day of this month, at two o'clock . . . with full power to appoint delegates." Minutes of the Albany Committee, I. 10. :1 " First the chairman put the question whether the members were fully authorized by their constituents to elect Delegates or Deputies to meet the Deputies from the other counties it appeared that they were unanimously empowered to appoint either." AM. HIST. REV., vol.. ix. — 6. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 82 be in favor ol~ sending delegates to the convention ; and a ticket of five members was unanimously chosen for that purpose. 1 In Kings Count}' representatives of four townships met at the county hall April 15 and unanimously appointed five deputies to attend the convention. The township of Flatlands remained neutral, neither supporting nor opposing the measure. 2 In Orange County the four precincts of Cornwall, Goshen, Haverstraw, and Orangetown held separate meetings and named deputies. 3 Of any opposition in these precincts, or of any action at all in others, there is no red >rd. In Suffolk a county meeting was held at the county hall, April 6, and rive delegates were chosen to represent the count}-. 1 Ulster County chose delegates in the same way. On April 7 thirty-nine deputies, fitom ten towns, assembled at New Paltz. Three delegates were named. ' This action was approved by another town, Roch- ester, where a meeting was held on the same day. < Ipposition appears to have been confined to a letter signed by Cadwallader Colden, Jr., and Peter and Walter DuBois, protesting against the election as unlawful." In Dutchess, Queens, and Westchester there was strong opposi- tion. Although Dutchess sent delegates in response to the New York letter, it is doubtful whether a majority of the inhabitants were in favor of doing so : it is certain that a majority of the precincts were not. The question was taken up first in the towns or precincts sepai although the meeting in Charlotte precinct is the only one of which a record has been preserved." Of the eleven precincts Minutes of the Albany Committee, I. 12. The committee, at this meeting, consisted of fifteen members from the following districts: Kirsl Waul, 2; Second Waul, 1 ; Third Ward, 2; two districts of kensselaervvyck, 2; Manor ol Livingston, 1 ; Schaghtchick district, 2 ; Claverack, I ; Scoharie and Duanesburgh, 2 ; Nestegarie and Halfmoon, 1; Saratoga, 1. ■ \ is made b) Walter Livingston whether Deputies shall be appointed tu represent the City and'' ountj ol Ubanj I •> 1 ihi 20 day of April ... at the city of New Vork. . . . Resolved, unanimously, that Deputies be appointed . . . Mr. Henrj Bogarl . . . dissented, he being for appointing delegates for the City and County of Albany to meet the intended congri ; al Philadelphia, Resolved by a majority that live persons be appointed. . . . Resolved unanimously that Abram Vales, Walter Livingston, Col. Schuyler, Colonel leu Broeck ami Col. Peter Livingston are ap- pointed fl>i ■ , 12. 1 Ca ida //.' ■ 1 al Mann . < ipts, 1. 41. ' \ tin rifan In in 1 . II. 275, (52, ;i;; 1 r Historical Mann . 1 2- 3- * Ibid., I. 19. '•( reorge I linton Manuscripts, 1 . 55 ; < 'alt ndar of Historical Manuscripts, I. 21, 22. <"., I- 22. 23 ; Si hoonmai her, Kin ■ ■ [66. 1 The meeting was held April 7. I he vote st 1 [40-35 in opposition to delegates. About 100 more appeared after the poll 1 losi d, and offered to vote for " constitutional liberty,' but the advoi all "I the Congress " Leu, up the contest." New York Met% ury, April 17, 1775; 4 American Archives, II. 3°4 83 C. Becker in the county seven were opposed to sending delegates to the con- vention, four were in favor of doing so. The conservatives claimed that in the count}- as a whole there was a large majority opposed to the convention ; the radicals claimed that there was a majority in favor of it. 1 On the strength of this claim a general meeting was held April 14, consisting of deputies from the four radical precincts, which named three delegates to represent the county. 2 Although it must be said, at the very least, that the wishes of Dutchess County were not ascertained in any satisfactory manner, the dele- gates were received by the convention. In Queens County the matter was taken up by the towns separately also. Three towns, Jamaica, 3 Hempstead, 1 and Oyster Bay,'' voted not to send delegates ; two towns, Newtown 1 ' and Flushing,' appointed one delegate each. In Jamaica- and Oyster Bay '' the radicals held subsequent meetings and appointed delegates to attend the convention as minority repre- sentatives. These four delegates (two representing two towns as such, two representing minorities in two other towns) attended the convention, but that body decided that Queens County was not en- titled to vote on the measures which came before it. In West- chester careful management on the part of the radicals was all but necessary to get the county represented. The New York letter appears to have been communicated — it is not clear just how 1 " — to twelve gentlemen residing in four towns " in the southern part of the count)-. These twelve gentlemen met at White Plains, 1 IKd. t 304, 305. 2 CaUndai of Historical Manuscripts, I. 41. The four precincts were Rheinbeck, North East, Armenia, and Rumbout. Poughkeepsie was one of the seven opposed to the convention. It seems not unlikely that Dutchess was lar from having a majority in favor of the convention. 1 By vote of 94-82. New ) rk Afercwy, April 3,1775; Rivington's Gazetteer, April 6, 1775; 4 American Ar, 'lives, II. 251,838, S39. * By resolution in town meeting. Rivingtoris Gazetteer, April 6, 1775; Calendar of Historical Manuscripts, I. 38, 39; 4 American Ar, hives. II. 273. 5 By resolution in town meeting ; vote, 205-42. Onderdonck, Documents ami Let- ters . . . of Queens County, 26. 6 By a popular meeting of freeholders. It is said that loo freeholders, a majority of all the freeholders in the town, were present. Jacob Blackwell was elected unanimously, 4 American Archives, II. 356; Onderdonck, Documents and Letters . . . of Queens County, 23; kicker, Newtown, 179. 7 John Talnian, elected by " great majority" in town meeting. 4 American Ar- chives, II. 356; Onderdonck, Documents and Letters, 25. 8 Joseph Robinson. 4 American trchi , II. 356. 9 Zebulon Williams ( formerly Seaman ) was given " full power and authority to act ' ' in behalf of forty-two freeholders. Calendar of Historical Manuscripts, I. 39, 40. 10 According to Dawson, there was no "vestage" of the old committee left in West- chester, to which the letter might be sent. He thinks the letter was sent to Lewis Mor- ris and communicated by him to the twelve men. Dawson, Westchester County, 65, 66. ll Theodosius Bartow, James Willis, Abram Guion, of New Rochelle ; William Sut- ton, of Mamaronec ; Lewis Morris, Thomas Hunt, Abram Leggett, of Westchester; James Horton, of Rye. Delegates to Second Continental Congress 84 March 28, in order to devise means for "taking the sense of the county" on the subject of the convention. For this purpose a cir- cular letter was issued by them and sent to the different districts, calling a general meeting of the freeholders and freemen at White Plains, April I I . As it was well known that the initiators of this movement were radicals, a letter was circulated by the conservatives, dated New York, April 6, urging all who were opposed to conven- tions and congresses and in favor of the Assembly's measures to assemble at the time and place appointed for the radical meeting. 1 On April 1 1, accordingly, some two hundred and fifty persons met at White Plains, the two parties establishing their headquarters at different taverns in the town. About 12 o'clock the radicals assem- bled at the court-house and were proceeding to the business of the day when the other party, led by Isaac Wilkins and Colonel Philips, marched in from Hatfield's tavern. Either from principle or from a consciousness of inferior numbers, the}' made no attempt to decide the question by ballot. Isaac Wilkins, speaking for the party, stated that they wished to have nothing to do with congresses or deputies, that their sole purpose was to protest against " such illegal and unconstitutional proceedings." Giving three cheers, the party returned to Captain Hatfield's, " singing as they went the grand and animating song of God save great George, our King." Here, cer- tainly, conservatism was hardly to be distinguished from loyalism. Without further opposition the radicals at the court-house proceeded to appoint eight delegates to the convention. As usual, each party claimed a majority." The one county which definitely refused to send delegates was Richmond;' those which apparently took no action were Charlotte, Cumberland, Tryon, and Gloucester. The provincial convention assembled at New York on April 20. 4 Credentials of election were presented by delegates from New York, Albany, Ulster, Orange, Westchester, Kings, Suffolk, Queens, and Dutchess. The delegates from Queens were debarred from voting ; ' but, even with this exception, a majority of the counties in the '4 American Archives, II. 2S2 ; Dawson, Westchester County, 67. -'The principal source for the meetings of March 28 and April II is the published statement made by Lewis Morris, who was chairman of the meeting of April II. 4 American Archives, II. 314 ; Calendar of Historical Mantis* rifits, I. 20, 21 ; .V. w 1 Mercury, April 17, 1775; Rivington's Ca t <>, April 20, 1775; Bolton, Westchester County, II 149; Dawson, JVestchestei County, 67. The statement of Morris should be checked by the conservative account of the meeting of April 11, in A < York Mercury, 1 '7> '775! 4 American Archives, II. 321. 1 '1 second statement of Morris, May 7, Ibid., 323. 1 Meeting of April 11 opposed convention almost unanimously. Ibid,, 31 ;. •Minutes preserved complete. Ibid. , 351-35^. 5 " That the gentlemen In Jueens County, viz., John Talman, Joseph Robinson, Zebulon Will ->ms, and Col. Jacob Blackwell, lie allowed to be present at its deliberations 85 C. Becker province were represented. On the following day the old dele- gates, 1 with the exception of Isaac Low and John Herring, 2 together with five others — Peter Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris, R. R. Livingston, and Francis Lewis — were elected to represent New York province in the second Continental Congress. Of this delegation the city's members were no longer a majority. One of the most conservative of the old city delegates, Isaac Low, had been replaced by an avowed radical, Francis Lewis. The conserva- tive programme — the attempt to steer a clear course between abso- lute revolution on the one hand and submissive loyalism on the other — had broken down, and the disintegration of the conserva- tive faction was practically complete : loyalists and revolutionists stood face to face. Carl Becker. and will take into consideration any advice they may offer, but cannot allow them a vote ; with which those gentlemen declare themselves satisfied. " a, American Archives, II. 356 ; Onderdonck, Documents and Letters, 22. 1 Isaac Low, James Duane, Philip Livingston, John Jay, and John Alsop, of New York city; Henry Wisner and John Herring, of Orange; William Floyd, of Suffolk ; Simon Boerum, of Kings. 2 Herring gave satisfactory reasons for declining an election. Low was chairman of the Committee of Sixty, but he was not in sympathy with the radical policy of the commit- tee. He was nominated, nevertheless, as one of the eleven deputies to the provincial convention. Before the election came off he announced that he would not attend the convention if elected. He was elected but did not attend. As the convention was lim- ited to its own members in the choice of delegates to Congress, the secretary visited Low and asked him if he considered himself a member of the convention. He replied that he did not. 4 American Archives, II. 355, 357. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 107 393 ft & LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 107 393 A Conservation Resouj Lig-Free» Type j Ph 8.5, Buffered \ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 107 393 A Conservation Resour Lie-Free® Type I Ph 8.5, Bufferedt