aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon
Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a
rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail
with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside
of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place
of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by
militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New
Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard
of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany),
whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians.
Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The
folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by
which the Director-General sought to save something of his
dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between
the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation
confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property,
the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens.
The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the
29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the
city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on
taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the
civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam
be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James,
in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the
time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its
magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not
exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the
point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new
government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson
under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort
Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a
title of the Duke of York."
J. A. Stevens,
The English in New York
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 10).
ALSO IN:
J. R. Brodhead,
History of New York,
volume 1, chapter 20.
Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volumes 2-3.
See, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
The separation of New Jersey,
by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
The annexation of the Delaware settlements.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.
The province as the English received it.
Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.
"In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English,
New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have
consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population
was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians,
who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The
inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection.
High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of
flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property,
while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The
treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens
who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in
advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here
by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high
civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to
the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English
in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice
conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were
protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for
an instant presume that the institutions which half a century
had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the
English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to
suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as
gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro
slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only
under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of
religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed
Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several
occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into
consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus,
to some extent, a principle of representative government was
at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with
the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too
much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It
must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a
self-governing people and accustomed to that most important
principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In
common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy
independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that
these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation
to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was
not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience
demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly
is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the
whole, it must be conceded that the company's government
introduced here much that was good and accomplished little
that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the
English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of
America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people,
well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious
freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced
with all that was good in the system introduced by the
English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It
is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political
authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into
New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet
it requires a very much more extended examination of original
sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just
how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at
a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed
the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."
R. L. Fowler,
Constitutional and Legal History, of New York
in the 17th Century
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 14).
{2332}
"Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony
under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its
population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of
the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily
with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains,
attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of
flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are
descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English
occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar
in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of
honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In
1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh,
Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der
Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van
Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and
Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck
is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in
1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor
from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were
aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett
Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van
Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan
Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham
Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In
1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de
Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is
mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt,
Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John
Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor.
During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names
are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the
beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur
only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their
leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large
proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English
colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch
foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing
only after the English occupation. This is true, with the
qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after
that event had greater opportunities for successful activity.
… Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the
end of the seventeenth century, after which time English
contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying
towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson
River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In
New York city the large English immigration, the requirements
of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and
English families had given to English the predominance by the
year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the
peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until
1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom
of registering transfers of real estate has been received from
the same source."
B. Tuckerman,
Peter Stuyvesant,
chapter 4.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
The Duke's Laws.
"At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March
1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor
Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's
authority, a body of laws for the government of the new
province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested,
'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's
American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many
traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The
code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined
'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious
Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have
come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of
New England,"
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 17 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
The Duke of York's Book of Laws,
compiled and edited by S. George, et al.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.
French invasions of the Iroquois country,
under Courcelles and Tracy.
See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
The reconquest of the city and province by the Dutch.
The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one
of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual
declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became
formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666,
ingloriously for England although she retained her American
conquests.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666
Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of
Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to
betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a
perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
granted by the victors. …
{2333}
Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
… It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
"Colve's commission described his government as extending from
15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
… The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.
J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapters 4-5.
ALSO IN:
Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 14-15.
Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
volume 2.
Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 9.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.
Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
Iroquois country.
"Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in
procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in
1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,
at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or
council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel
Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the
Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even
asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon
their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most
readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become
necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe
it into an act of at least partial submission to English
authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians
themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,
that might protect them against the French."
W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 1, page 15.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
French invasions of the Iroquois country
under De La Barre and De Nonville.
See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.
The Dongan Charter.
"The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the
'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by
Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one
of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,
sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.
Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save
in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which
the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The
instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great
city."
Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, page 317.
ALSO IN:
M. Benjamin,
Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 11).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.
In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made
Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new
commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of
all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory
and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country
between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,
thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of
government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to
reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the
administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor
was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of
whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in
Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the
government, and might pass laws, which however were, within
three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy
Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was
to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the
whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,
agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."
J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 18.
J. R. Brodhead, editor
Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 3, pages 537-554.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
The Revolution.
Jacob Leisler and his fate.
News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from
the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,
William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in
February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the
public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the
authority of the latter occurred until after the people of
Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,
Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and
casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a
little later by like action in New York. Two parties had
quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,
the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former
embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,
the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,
and the municipal authorities.
{2334}
The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the
citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the
imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been
overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was
invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the
legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might
delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the
principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German
by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five
train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one
of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous
opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and
determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by
the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced
great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of
citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to
become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel
Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly
for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the
'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert
Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of
the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and
champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was
formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.
They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested
him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief
magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.
This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained
to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the
public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he
proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary
sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a
letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had
done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to
assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but
departed presently for England, "after formally giving
authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his
absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made
known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and
the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several
counties of the province to elect their civil and military
officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The
counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually
and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became
greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who
was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'
as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the
indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was
compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other
councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they
acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an
independent government, and claimed to be the true and only
rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained
by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,
Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of
their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his
mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York
by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,
directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to
such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the
peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of
New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to
Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and
attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.
"From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed
an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler
justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the
people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at
once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed
councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,
and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war
with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed
Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of
1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in
the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take
possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the
governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme
power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the
province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of
the fort, without deigning to show the governor his
credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the
troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to
take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city
was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and
'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in
March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort
and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of
Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious
action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also
Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a
charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and
sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne
received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the
governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As
Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they
intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature
to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before
the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and
Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became
sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly
stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he
died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,
enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high
position in history of a patriot and martyr."
B. J. Lossing,
The Empire State,
chapter 8.
"Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,
but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are
imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the
utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an
opposition led by persons who held office under King James.
They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the
office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity
as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a
patriot."
R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
chapter 3.
{2335}
"The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.
… And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a
martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,
aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as
one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors
of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a
traitor."
W. Dunlap,
History of the New Netherlands,
volume 1, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
C. F. Hoffman,
The Administration of Jacob Leisler
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 3).
Papers relating to
Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
(O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2).
Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
(New York Historical Society Collection, 1868).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
Abortive expedition against Montreal.
French plans of conquest.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:
NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.
Bradford's press set up.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.
Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.
See CANADA: A. D. 1696.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
Capture of Port Royal.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.
See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
Zenger's trial.
Vindication of the freedom of the press.
"In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet
and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New
York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the
assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he
did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had
lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and
free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,
and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at
Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was
transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the
chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the
time when the ministry was warned that 'the American
assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of
Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as
governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John
Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate
had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped
contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all
things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,
was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,
and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,
broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no
sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch
at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …
To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of
Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and
insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of
the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:
'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in
England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby
displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent
of the council or waiting for the approbation of the
sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A
newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in
November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its
printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an
apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and
afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the
council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious
libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the
attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger
took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they
ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without
the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by
disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at
the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,
penetration, and application to business. All the central
colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial
the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable
Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for
Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You
cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give
the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to
the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The
jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and
they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is
not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is
the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not
guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York
the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous
defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the
press.'"
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. Grahame,
History of the United States (Colonial),
book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).
W. L. Stone,
History of New York City,
2d period, chapter 2.
E. Lawrence,
William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 7).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.
The first Newspaper.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.
How the Iroquois placed themselves
under the protection of England.
"Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at
Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had
received from England, and all the injuries that had been
inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow
to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The
Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion
of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.
They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the
King of England for help to regain their country from the
French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a
surrender of their country to England, to be protected for
their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for
their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and
represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian
chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois
confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of
Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their
territory to be subject to Great Britain."
W. Dunlap,
History of New York,
volume 1, page 289.
{2336}
NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot.
Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.
In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and
bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than
the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or
8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine
fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the
burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An
indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a
reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot
formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,
to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was
confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a
robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly
turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among
the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight
lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by
turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no
counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient
evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all
sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in
passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to
save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy
convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and
seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement
then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices
against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being
a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes
to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and
executed."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Mrs. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 26.
G. W. Williams,
History of the Negro Race in America,
volume 1, chapter 13.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.
Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.
The founding of King's College.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
The struggle for Vermont.
The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.
See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
Abortive expedition against Niagara.
Braddock's defeat.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
The French and Indian War:
English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
The French and Indian War:
Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
The French and Indian War:
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
The French and Indian War:
Completed English conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
The conflict of parties.
The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
and the Committee of Sixty.
"In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the
Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were
ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea
ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that
gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.
… An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,
engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any
connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or
'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by
Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers
was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of
Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.
Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of
the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January
20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch
with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the
year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve
others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a
proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April
15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,
followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance
assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'
landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat
and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood
out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried
Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening
before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by
the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was
enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by
the ship Samson on the 12th.
{2337}
Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston
Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most
effectual, and assuring them that their course would be
heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had
been the march of events that not till now did the merchants
and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their
concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly
compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible
committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted
more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had
been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations
condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men
who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote
Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and
acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the
lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the
Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens
seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal
inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might
run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a
considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the
Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by
advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel
Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'
… A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of
twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the
approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister
colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these
nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the
Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,
Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which
had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House
again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and
organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the
Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response
to another communication just received from Boston, by the
famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged
that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is
of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …
not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,
but for the security of our common rights;' and that the
advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to
the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be
exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative
suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common
rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York
was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before
a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of
Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates
to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose
for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,
and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to
the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at
the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the
committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to
substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."
This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate
expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently
opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a
unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,
at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest
clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of
the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the
'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."
G. Pellew,
John Jay,
chapter 2.
"The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its
object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of
the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to
enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late
Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and
organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was
dissolved."
Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, page 768.
ALSO IN:
I. Q. Leake,
Life and Times of General John Lamb,
chapter 6.
J. A. Stevens,
The Second Non-importation Agreement
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 11).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
The first provincial Convention held.
"The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
there was an elective council and an annually elected
assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
store several days without them. While they were on their way
to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
appeal to the people.
{2338}
The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
representatives from such of the counties of the province as
should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
[April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
provincial convention in New York—the first positive
expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
adjournment."
B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapters 17-18.
ALSO IN:
W. Dunlap,
History of New York,
volume 1, chapter 29.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action upon the news.
Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
Siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
The end of royal government.
Flight of Governor Tryon.
"On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of
Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open
hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of
Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of
the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,
together with a quantity which had been deposited in the
arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom
formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of
Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the
city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the
custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the
vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now
became necessary to organize some provisional government for
the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting
of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a
Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the
charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to
obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by
the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part
of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the
popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by
the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their
more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the
command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as
their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any
persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …
The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on
their colleagues to present a placable address to